The Social Cleansing of Football and Why Fans Should Challenge It
Football Supporters come from all walks of life from students to managing directors, paramedics to builders, train drivers to architects, children to pensioners. There is often nothing to link a group of football supporters other than their love of the game. Many supporters will attend home and away games, week after week, paying a not inconsiderable amount of money for their ticket and travel on top. Yet despite this, football supporters are increasingly being treated badly by their clubs.
A lot of the complaints I receive from fans amount to a social cleansing of the game. Supporters having their season tickets cancelled for no real reason, clubs banning fans for life for one minor indiscretion, clubs canceling a supporter’s membership due to the behaviour of another member of their family at a football match. Many supporters are reporting to me that they are receiving threatening letters from the Club’s lawyers, in effect telling them that legal action will be brought against them for their behaviour of using social network to make complaints about the Club management, unless they agree in writing not to write anything else on social network or fanzines about the Club.
My social cleansing theory on this is that the game of football was always a working person’s game. Supporting a particular team has been passed down through generations in many families, and it is a game that families attend together. However, in the current scheme of marketing, TV viewing rights, and financial promotion of many teams, the costs of a season ticket for a father and son or daughter pales into insignificance when compared with the corporate costs charged for a box, or particular seats in the Stadium. A box which can seat around 8 fans, and costing between £30000 and £40000 for a season has to be a better option for a club than 8 season tickets which may bring in less than £4000. Add to this that the beer in the box area flows at around £5 a pint, and the catering for a few sausage rolls and a slice of lasagna can run to more than £10 per head, and it is easy to see why the usual season ticket holders or occasional ticket purchasers are no longer favoured by the clubs.
So how does this link in with the fans being hassled by the clubs? Firstly, if fans who are openly criticising their club manage to get a following on social media or fanzines then this can create a movement that the Club can’t control. Clubs are trying to nip this in the bud. Secondly, banners at the ground do not look good for a club when the footage is screened around the World. Clubs are trying to promote this World image that does not accord with fans who are complaining about ticket prices, safe standing, and clubs that are happy to play overseas despite knowing that their players will be subjected to racial abuse or worse.
I have been advising fans on their options on having their membership or season ticket cancelled by a club. I always comment on the fact that supporters will put up with their club treating them badly, and will still go along to the match week after week, but once a season ticket or membership is taken away, that is when a football fan decides to fight. The main reason for this is that while a supporter has a season ticket, the Club has a stick to wield as it can threaten to cancel the season ticket or membership if the supporter continues with their complaint. But until fans start to challenge this overbearing behaviour by the clubs, it will continue and the fans will be the ones to suffer.
Alison Gurden advises and represents on all these issues and all other areas of Football Supporter Law.
You have the Right to a Lawyer – So Use It!
“I didn’t ask for a lawyer as I have not done anything wrong”
“The police said that it would take a while for the duty lawyer to arrive and I just wanted to get the interview over and done with and get out of the police station”
“I took the caution as I wanted to get out of the police station”
If I had £1 for every time I have heard these comments from a client, I would be sitting on a beach somewhere hot and sunny now rather than writing this!
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act provides the right to a lawyer, either one that you request or a duty lawyer. The reason for this is not just to advise on the criminal law it is to protect your interests in the police station. Sadly the TV only ever portrays the work of a lawyer in the police station as sitting in on the interview, but in reality your interests are much more than just making sure you are dealt with fairly in interview.
The way police interviews are portrayed on TV, is very similar to what happens in real life. The interviews are all audio recorded and many are video recorded as well, and you can request copies of the tapes from the police. Hence, although I would recommend that anyone who attends an interview has a lawyer present, it can often be more important to have a lawyer representing you outside of the interview room.
The interview is only one aspect of a person’s time in the police station. The length of time spent in the cells, the bail conditions, whether a caution or fixed penalty notice is offered (and whether the offer should be accepted), are all matters that a lawyer can help with. In general, people who have a lawyer spend less time in custody in the cells, have less strict bail conditions, or are more likely to be released and bailed to attend court instead of being held in custody to attend court.
While it is possible to challenge police bail in court, it can take a few days for the court to list the matter and in the meantime the bail conditions may be so strict that a person effectively cannot go outside their front door for risk of breaching their bail conditions. Hence, it is better if a lawyer makes representations to the police at the time. Conditions such as ‘not to enter a town X’ or ‘not to travel on public transport’ are commonly imposed on those who are unrepresented, and are so easily breached especially if a person has to enter the town or use the train or bus to get to work or to visit family.
The person who accepts the police bail conditions just because they want to get out of the police station will often not realise the consequences of such restrictions, and that if they breach the bail conditions, not only can they be arrested, but they can end up in front of the court. On a breach of bail, in certain situations, it is open to the court to decide that the detainee should be remanded in custody…they are sent to prison on remand until the case is dealt with by the court.
This sounds extreme and for most who are given police bail, this never happens, but in general it is more likely to happen to those who did not have a lawyer at the police station, and who didn’t think it could happen to them.
Likewise, the quickest way to get out of the cells is to ask for a lawyer. Once booked into the cells, there is a time limit on the amount of time a person can be held in custody. This is known as ‘the custody clock’. It is worth remembering that the custody clock starts ticking from the time a person enters the custody suite at the police station and not from the time the lawyer arrives, so in general, the police will make the call to the lawyer straight away, and will chase if the lawyer has not arrived within a reasonable period of time. Waiting for a lawyer is highly unlikely to extend the amount of time a person is held in the cells.
Although a caution or fixed penalty notice will seem like ‘no big deal’ when it is being offered, in reality it can be a huge deal. A caution can affect employment, will show up on a Criminal records Bureau check, and can be used against a person in the future. I see many cases where someone has taken a caution or fixed penalty notice merely due to their haste to be released from the cells, they are then arrested for another matter a few years later and this caution or fixed penalty notice is used against them to show their anti-social nature. These cautions and fixed penalty notices show up on a police national computer and can be used in court as evidence of previous criminal history.
Alternatively it may be that an offence has been committed, but that it is quite minor, and the lawyer can make a request for a caution in circumstances where the police would not readily offer one. This means a person avoids being placed under bail conditions and avoids going to court.
For those of you wondering if this is just a promotional post from a lawyer trying to get more work, it is actually the opposite. I am not a police station representative, and the work I undertake in court is often in response to people not having representation in the police station.
But if you are ever unfortunate enough to be arrested, please think of me in my ‘you have the right to a lawyer…so use it‘ T-shirt!
Hold the Gate….
This is a familiar phrase for anyone who visits Florida jails or prisons. It means that the exit gates and doors are locked shut as there are inmates walking past.
Its 8am, and as I walk though the gate into the elevator lobby in the Pre-trial Detention Center in Miami, I hear the familiar phrase and a line of inmates in Orange shuffle past me, handcuffed in two’s and shackled to the inmates in front. They are all on their way to court. Some say ‘Good morning Miss’, others nod at me or smile, others keep their heads down or eyes straight ahead. These are usually the inmates who are new to the system, and who cannot grasp what is going on around them.
This part of the jail is mainly metal gates, the lobby echoes, and with all these inmates and the corrections officers directing them, the sound is deafening. I get the nod from the front office, the interview room on the floor I need to visit is free, I can go up. Despite the fact the room is full of shackled inmates, with no space to squeeze around the edge of them, I will not miss the opportunity to get into an interview room, there are only one or two on each floor and as the day progresses they will become more in demand. I eye up a couple of inmates who have nodded to me and said ‘Good Morning’ to me.
“Excuse me lads, you couldn’t just crouch down so that I can jump over your chains could you?” They oblige and I skip over their chains and head for he lift. Don’t get me wrong, I have no illusions that all inmates will be nice to me, and I will never duck under the chains, as it would be all too easy for an inmate to loop that chain around my neck. For the very same reason I will not sit in an interview room with an inmate who is handcuffed (inmates are handcuffed to the front), although I believe I have a good gauge of my defendants, and have never had a client, either in England or anywhere else, make a move on me, I don’t want to be in a 6′ x 6′ locked room with an inmate who has a metal strangulation method on their wrists, everyone has bad days..
The inmate I am going to see is charged with capital murder, but is not considered to be a high risk, and so is on one of the less violent floors. He is based in a pen with 23 other inmates. The corrections officers know me as I regularly visit him and spend hours with him in interview. They take my badge and allow me to walk down to the pen gate. Before I can yell to my inmate, others have seen me coming and have already called him. The rules don’t allow me to stand at the gate and talk to the inmates, but it doesn’t prevent me from taking a very slow walk back to the interview room whilst chatting to the inmates who have come to the penn gate. To many, this is the only contact they get with someone who is not a corrections officer or inmate. Our conversations are like normal office talk ‘did you see the game last night?’ ‘Have you heard the new Usher track?’.
I wait in the interview room for my client to be brought in. He is handcuffed and the first thing I ask is ‘Cuffs off please’. The corrections officer is new, to the floor, I have not seen him before. “I don’t know m’am. Its for safety.” he says. I look at my client “You aren’t scared of your safety with me in the room are you?”. He laughs, and the guard takes the cuffs off. I shake hands with the client and we sit. There is just enough space for the table and two chairs, the room has windows on two sides and as we talk, the inmates outside preparing the lunch trays watch us. They are ‘Trustees’ which means they have earnt the right to be out of their penn carrying out jobs. Earning the right usually means they have behaved themselves, but it also means they have been in jail for a long time. They know me and know better than to interrupt my interview by banging on the window, or trying to attract my attention, but they give a small wave and nod as they go past, and I return the same.
This client is one I first met two years ago, and I have spent a lot of time with him since. He is charged with capital murder,
“How are you doing” I ask.
“Ok, there was a fight in the penn last night. Dude got shanked, he was cut real bad”
“Who?”. He tells me, and I recognize the name. An inmate who is a co defendant on one of my other cases.
“Can you find out how he is?” Just as I think my client is feeling compassion for this inmate, he continues “cause he has a good bunk and if he ain’t coming back I want his bunk”.
“Wow you are all heart, you know that?” I make it clear that I am not impressed with his lack of compassion. He just nods.
We talk about things that have happened in the jail since my last visit and then we talk about the specific element of his mitigation that I want to cover that day. This client is not the easiest to obtain information from, not because he is not prepared to talk, but because his thought processes don’t work in a logical way. I cannot ask direct questions as he either does not understand them or cannot think through the answers. So I have to ask roundabout questions. For example when I asked him ‘Did they cuff you to the back in the cop car?’ he didn’t know. But when I said, think about sitting in the cop car, was it uncomfortable, did it hurt?’ he replied ‘yeah, as they had my hands cuffed behind my back so I couldn’t sit back’. I have probably spent over 200 hours with this client, and from that have obtained the occasional chink of helpful information. That is one of the benefits that I can provide to the public defender’s office, as I am a volunteer, I am not on the clock and can spend hours sitting talking to the clients, whereas my colleagues cannot justify doing so as they have so much other work to do.
We talk for about an hour and I manage to get a small amount of useful information from my client. I always try to finish the interview on a positive note, rather than dwelling not he case, and this morning we talk about one of my recent escapades…
I bang on the window to let the corrections officers know I want to be released, but I am not sure that they hear me as they don’t make a move, so I catch the attention of the trustee and get him to let them know I want releasing. I do often wonder, if my client were to start kicking off whether the corrections officers would notice in time to help, but fortunately I have never had that scenario. I have had situations where I can see that a client is changing their demeanor (I have one client who hears the Devil every so often), and when that happens I decide it is time to go, the last thing I want is for my client to get in trouble because I have pushed his buttons too much.
As I leave the interview room I have a chat with the trustees, one of them wants to know whether I can teach him the rules of soccer. “Another day’ Honey..’ I say as I get in the elevator.
The lift arrives in the lobby to another mass of orange, and the familiar ‘Hold the gate’. Once again I am trapped in this noisy lobby with over 40 inmates. One of them leers over towards me, I stand my ground…any sign of weakness can get a beating or a reputation of being scared…I want neither. The line of shackles move off and the leering inmate moves forward and out of my way…
The gate is released and I can walk out into the sun and humidity of a Miami morning. Every time I walk out of the jail I am eternally grateful that I have my freedom, and the humidity, that I usually bitch about, is suddenly a great feeling. I am aware that some of my clients have not had that feeling for the last 5 years, and may not get it again for a long time, and when they do, it will be in a yard surrounded by barbed wire and watch towers.
Since the Trevor McDonald programme I have been inundated with questions about my life with death row prisoners, and those in jail awaiting trial for capital cases and who may be ordered to face the death penalty. This is the first in a series of blogs to explain the reality..which is nowhere near as glamorous and dramatic as the TV indicates. This extract of a jail visit is made up of my experiences with different clients in order to protect and preserve their anonymity.
I am happy to answer questions about my work, but I will not under any circumstances provide any access to my clients, so please don’t ask me if you can interview my clients, visit my clients, interview me about my clients, or come with me on a visit to the jail or prisons because the answer will be a resounding ‘NO’ . These are peoples lives I am dealing with. I am not a bleeding heart lawyer, I accept that some of my clients are guilty, and some are innocent, and that the guilty ones caused the death of another, often in horrific circumstances, but that does not make them a circus animal they are still entitled to the best representation, and I will do my utmost to protect them to make sure that there is a due process of law.
Defending the Indefensible – There is no such thing
Representing Hillsborough Police Officers – Why I am Taking Up the Challenge
Following on from the recent media reports about the planned police and IPCC investigations into the actions of the police in the Hillsborough tragedy, I thought it best to add my point of view before rumours get out otherwise of my intended involvement in the defence of police officers.
Mark George QC in his article for the Justice Gap http://thejusticegap.com/News/hillsborough-end-of-beginning-for-campaign-for-justice/
summarises the issues facing the investigators and I don’t disagree with anything he says. I do believe that the families of those involved in the tragedy deserve justice. However, I am always fearful of a knee jerk reaction where there is an instant attempt by the media and others to find someone to blame – and that blame has fallen squarely with the police.
I was asked a few weeks ago while I always feel the need to defend the indefensible. To which my answer was ‘there is no such thing as indefensible, everyone is entitled to a defence.’ However, it is true that I enjoy a challenge and if I have a choice will usually opt for representing the underdog, whether it be a football supporter who is classified as a hooligan by the public who do not even know the supporter, but has classified them purely due to the football team they support, or the person who finds themselves facing the death penalty despite the fact they were suffering from severe mental illness at the time of the killing. My blog on ‘How I defend Killers and Sleep at Night’ http://wp.me/p2vym0-4h explains my thinking on this point.
This leads me on to my willingness to represent police officers who are facing investigation under the new Hillsborough investigations. These investigations will be unprecedented, and some officers will face years of investigation, inquiry and litigation from IPCC investigations to police disciplinaries to inquests and criminal proceedings. In all of these, the officers have a right to a fair hearing. The question has to be asked, as to how fair those hearings will be when they are up against a police service which will want to make individual officers responsible rather than the Force, where the IPCC will be well aware that anything other than recommending action against the police will likely result in media assassination. Meanwhile, the Tomlinson trial, Plebgate, the Hillsborough inquiry, and the phone hacking inquiry has meant that the public perception of the police is at the lowest it has been for many years, in light of this will a police officer facing a jury trial be in a fair position?
I believe that there may have been officers who acted without integrity during the tragedy itself and afterwards, but in general these will have been the higher ranks who had more to lose. It is the lower ranking officers who now have the most to lose – reputation, pension, and at worse liberty. These officers are entitled, as any other defendant, to the best defence that they can get. Those of us at the Bar who have the experience of the IPCC, police disciplinary proceedings, inquests and criminal cases are in the best position to offer that defence. We are impartial, independent and should not be swayed by public opinion, will not be pressurised by the Police Forces concerned, or the Government. It is in situations such as this where the independent Bar comes into its own.
Many colleagues have raised the point that by openly stating my support for the defence of Hillsborough police officers, I may lose my other client bases, those who bring actions against the police, those charged with serious criminal offences, and football fans who feel they are wrongly stigmatised by the police as hooligans. My response to this – I have represented police officers and others for years. It is my knowledge and experience that draws in my clients and not my affiliations (of which I have none other than to ensure that everyone has a fair trial). It is this broad stretch of work that ensures that I have in-depth knowledge of the criminal justice system, what I learn from representing police officers I can then use when bringing actions against the police, what I learn from representing those who are charged with criminal offences helps me when representing police officers.
A few years ago, while acting as a Prosecutor, I had a confrontation with a police officer during a debrief, in which I threatened to nail his shoulders to the wall if he shrugged at me once more. Obviously my comment did not go down well with him, and we spent the next few years avoiding each other, until he was facing disciplinary proceedings and he called me. When I asked why he wanted me to represent him when we clearly did not have a good relationship, he replied that as I had the guts to take him on in front of a room full of officers he felt I had the guts to see his case through and fight for him. And he was right, our past history did not matter, and I would hope that all my past and future clients feel the same, I don’t have to like them or what they stand for, and the same applies to their thoughts on me….what matters most is that they receive a fair trial or hearing and that the outcome is fair.
An Application for a Football Banning Order is not a Done Deal for the Police or CPS
‘When I walked into the pub and spoke to Football Fan 1 and tried to engage in discussion about today’s game he ignored me. I then saw him in a crowd chanting football songs as he walked to the ground. When in the ground he sat in his seat initially but then moved to another seat..showing complete disrespect to the stewards. he was wearing a black Northface jacket which is the attire worn by many risk football fans at football matches…After the game he was seen to be giving hostile looks at some opposing team supporters as he stood outside the kebab shop, I then saw him go inside the off license and slam the door. All of this leads me to believe that he is a risk supporter with no regard to the police or other fans. His lack of engagement with the police show that he is anti-police, and his chanting in the street was in a residential area where women and children who were not attending the football match could have been present and could have been frightened and offended by the chanting and group mentality.‘
THIS IS AN ACCUMULATION OF COMMENTS MADE BY FOOTBALL INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS IN THEIR STATEMENTS TO THE COURT. IT IS NOT AN ACTUAL STATEMENT, BUT IT GIVES A GOOD FLAVOUR OF THE TYPES OF ‘INTELLIGENCE’ AND COMMENTS MADE BY OFFICERS IN FOOTBALL BANNING APPLICATIONS.
With the football season well underway, now is the time that many police Football Intelligence Officers start to collate the ‘intelligence’ collected during the past few months on football fans. For some fans, the result is that they face an application made by the police or Crown Prosecution Service for a Football Banning Order. The recent Home Office statistics show that in comparison with the number of arrests which are made at football matches, the number of successful football banning applications is quite high. However, from speaking to fans who are or have been served with a football banning order application, the reason for this seems to be that in the main, fans will accept the banning order as they believe that if they have been arrested before or after a football match that means they can be banned from attending football matches in the future. Although the Football Spectators Act 1989 seems to indicate this, there is a wealth of case law which has narrowed this quite considerably, I have included some of the case law in this blog for those who have an interest in reading more.
When considering the imposition of a FBO the court should consider both the factual evidence – whether there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of Section 14 Spectators Supporters Act 1989, but also the persuasive evidence, in effect this is where the court is being asked to make a decision on what is likely to happen in the future. The persuasive evidence which can be taken into account by the court includes:-
- evidence that the defendant has not previously been warned about their behaviour at football matches;
- evidence that the defendant has not been convicted in any court of any football related disorder or violence previously;
- evidence that there have been no previous applications (criminal or civil) for FBO in respect of the defendant;
- evidence that there have been no previous attempts to control this defendant or that any control efforts have failed;
- no evidence that the behavior of the defendant had a detrimental effect on other football fans, or caused other football fans to become involved in disorder or violence;
So what is the meaning of ‘football related’?
The Court of Appeal has made it clear (R v Arbery & Mobley [2008], and R v Mabee (Craig) [2007). There should be a distinction drawn between violence arising directly from the football, and violence or disorder carried out by those who follow football. Hence a football fan who decides to fight another football fan due to their colours, whether inside or outside of the football match, may fall into the category of disorder or violence arising directly in connection with a football match. However, two fans who have a fight in a pub over a spilt drink, and who both just happen to be wearing football colours or intending to attend a local football match will not fall into this category. The relationship between the violence and the football must be explored in the facts of each particular case.
In Gough v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2002] the Court of appeal made it clear that a FBO cannot be made purely due to a defendant’s history of violence. The circumstances of the individual case under consideration should be taken along with the past conduct of the defendant, and whether these indicate that there is a likelihood that they will be involved in future violence or disorder. The issue for the court is very specific with regard to preventing future football related disorder, not just a general deterrence relating to any violent disorder.
In Doyle and others the Court of Appeal addressed the definition of football related and determined “because the Act requires the judgment of the Court whether the particular offence was ‘related to football matches’ it is clear that the mere fact that the defendant was on a journey to or from a match is not enough. There must be another connection…We offer the observation that it will not by itself be enough to make an offence ‘related to football matches’ that it would not have occurred “but for” the fact that [the defendant] was en route to or from a football match. If that by itself were enough, then every offence of the listed kind which was committed on a journey to or from a match would automatically qualify and the additional test of relation to football matches would be unnecessary and meaningless”.
Hence in the consideration of whether to impose a FBO in this case on either or both of these defendants, the Court should only impose an order if is it satisfied so that it is sure, that the FBO is required for the court to prevent further acts of violence or disorder at a football match, or in connection with a football match. In doing so, the Court should consider
- whether the offences on which the defendant was convicted were actually football related; and
- even if it was deemed to be considered football related, the Court must be satisfied that there is a likelihood that the defendant is going to be involved in acts of disorder or violence in the future; and
- that such acts will be football related;
- that a FBO will prevent such disorder or violence.
The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
to believe the FBO would prevent future disorder or violence
It is clear that FBO must not be made merely as a matter of course following the conviction of a football fan for a disorder or violence related offence (RVBoggild et al), consideration must be made of the facts of the individual case in front of the court. It has been accepted by the European Court of Human Rights that in cases where such orders are imposed, that to restrict the actions of a defendant in the future, on the basis of a belief in how the defendant is going to behave in the future ‘the court must determine whether a fair balance [is] struck between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights’ (Sporrong5).
In Doyle and others v R [2012] the Court of Appeal addressed this issue directly and stated “..what is important to remember is …that there must be a risk of repetition of violence or disorder at a match before it is met…….it is clear that it is not automatically satisfied because the current offence was football related.”
Hence, even if the offence is football related, it is clear that does not automatically justify the imposition of the FBO, in other words the court must ask itself is it necessary to impose a FBO to stop/prevent likely future disorder or violence at a football match?
So going back to the sample statement at the beginning of this blog, it is very unlikely that the list of complaints included in it would be taken by the court to show that a person has been involved in football related disorder nor that they are likely to be involved in disorder in the future. However, in my experience many fans will accept the ban rather than challenge the statement, but without appreciating the consequences of a banning order, which in addition to a ban from attending any football games, can include exclusion from the town on match days, a ban from using the railway network on match days, a ban on traveling overseas when any team match or England match is played overseas. And these bans can run to 5 years..that’s a very extreme restriction based on the weak comments in the sample statement.
Challenging a football banning order is not the right thing for every fan, but if the application is served on a fan, they should give careful consideration to whether it actually shows that they are a risk of committing football related disorder in the future.
Pro Bono Work – it doesn’t just benefit the client
Since advertising for pro bono legal researchers last week, I have been inundated with great applications from all types of students, lawyers, and other persons interested in the law. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are prepared to give up their time to help others, and much of it goes unrecognized.
Last week I met with a group of students at Sheffield University who have been working tirelessly on cases through the Innocence Project. Their knowledge of the cases was very impressive and was not obtained by spending only a few hours a week on the cases, they have clearly immersed themselves in these cases, and are very dedicated to the cases they have taken on. It is fair to say that if these students were not working pro bono, it is highly unlikely they would be involved in these types of cases, firstly because there is not the public funding to cover the hours of research and tracking down of documents which these students have undertaken, but also as they have no track record of this type of work and so are not going to be selected by a lawyer who knows there is probably only one shot at an appeal.
The fact that they can put this work on their CV means that these students are going to be attractive in the future to lawyers who require some assistance with criminal appeals. But it has also introduced them to the real world of the criminal practitioner, and made them realise that the law is one thing but practice is quite another. For example, the fact a lawyer has not used material at trial which they feel should have been used, does not mean that this unused material is new evidence which justifies a reopening of the case by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Or that finding an expert who will criticize a forensic method is one thing, but finding one who is prepared to criticize a forensic scientist in court is entirely another. Hence, for these students, the pro bono work has provided them with valuable experience which will assist them with their future careers, will look good on their cv and create a talking point at any interviews, and likely put them ahead of the game of the students who have the same academic background but have none of the practical experience. In those terms it is impossible to put a monetary value on the work they are doing now, both for the clients and themselves.
Not everyone can get involved with an Innocence Project, however, there are so many other worthy causes which those with an interest in law can become involved in, for example volunteering with victim or witness support will provide invaluable access to victims when they are at their most vulnerable. A volunteer may think that they have done nothing more than sat with the victim or witness for a couple of hours, outside court, talking about the X-Factor. But for some victims and witnesses, that is the difference between them remaining at court to give their evidence or deciding that they cannot go through with it and walking out of the court building. While the benefit for that individual victim or witness is clearly important, the experience of working with them is also invaluable for anyone who is going to be involved in cases in the future where there is victim or witness involvement, whether that be criminal, personal injury, etc. In my experience you cannot be a good lawyer without an understanding of the clients and the victims, and you don’t get this understanding by holding clients and victims at a distance and not finding out what it is like for them .
For anyone interested in employment law or HR, becoming a trustee of a small local organisation is a way of seeing employment through the eyes of a small firm, where the HR manager is possibly also the office manager, receptionist and general all-rounder. This gives a flavor of how difficult it can sometimes be for a small employer to stay on top of the employment laws and regulations, and how sometimes although the employer has not fully compiled with the law, there are ways of resolving the matter without resorting to an employment tribunal. What may appear black and white in terms of compliance in an employment law assignment may be decidedly more grey in real life, and it is the real life examples that the pupillage or training contract interviewer wants to hear.
In reality, pro bono work that makes a difference takes real commitment, and interviewers are very aware of the students who involved themselves in pro bono work just before applying for a job, pupillage or a training contract. Having a piece of pro bono work on your cv is one thing, being able to talk about it with enthusiasm and knowledge during an interview is another. Those people who are looking to just add it to their cv are doing both themselves and those they have signed up to assist a disservice. I am a member of an organisation which trains students to assist complainants in bringing cases in front of a tribunal. For those who then go on to take cases in the tribunal, they are providing something back to the organization and also those complainants which the organisation tries to help. But for many, they undertake the training and take on one case so that they can add it to their cv. Employers are well aware of this practice and will question about it during interview, and if a student has indicated on their cv that they have undertaken cases when in reality they have done nothing more than the training or perhaps one case which was settled by negotiation, the future employer will see through this very quickly. In effect it is misrepresentation on a cv, and is not something a future employer takes lightly.
The message is..if you want to get ahead of the game in law, pro bono work is a great way to do so, but only those with commitment need apply.
Legal Researcher Required – Pro Bono
Due to my recent award of Pro Bono lawyer of the year 2012, I have been inundated with requests for pro bono assistance. While many of these are very worthy cases, and very interesting challenges, I am unable to undertake them all as my current pro bono practice takes up more time than my paying practice as it is.
In view of this, I am looking for a legal researcher to assist me, in the hope that for many of these cases, even if I cannot really assist in the long term, I can provide an advice which will give some idea of at least the area of law that the complaint fits into and what to do next.
The work will be varied, and hopefully interesting, but as it is all pro bono on my part, I cannot afford to pay for any of this research. I will require at least 10 hours per month commitment, for a period of 3 months. Much of the time I will be overseas so it will require someone who can work on their own initiative and who has the drive and commitment to work on the research without being chased and reminded, and who can stick to deadlines.
I am searching for someone who has a good understanding of law, but that does not mean someone who has necessarily completed their BPTC, however those currently studying for their BPTC or GDL will probably find that my 10 hours a month requirement is too much along with their studies. The successful candidate must have the ability not only to research, but to apply that to actual cases and write an advice which is clear and concise, which a lay person can understand. This is not a task of writing law essays. In view of my practice, the likely areas of law to be researched are criminal, complaints against the police, inquests, discrimination, employment, benefits refusal, prison law, criminal injuries compensation to name a few…
What I hope to provide to the researcher in return is an idea of life at the Bar, a varied experience of case work, the opportunity to shadow me at court, the possibility of working on some very novel cases, both from the UK and the USA. I am happy to provide a reference at the end of the three month stint and also will offer continued guidance on applying for pupillage/training contract etc.
Make no mistake, this is going to be a tough role as I am a hard taskmaster as any of my previous research assistants will tell you. However, all who have survived…have been successful in either obtaining pupillage, scholarships for overseas work, training contracts or places on further education courses. There is no requirement to be based in London as most of this work can be done remotely, via email. However, I am looking for someone who is serious about putting the work in, and so if you are considering applying, you must firstly consider your course/work requirements over the next three months and if you will not be able to fit in at least 10 hours a month then now is not the time for you to be applying to be my researcher. There will be other opportunities in the future. The time must be right for you.
If all of the above has not put you off and you would like to apply, please send your cv and a covering letter explaining why you want to be my researcher to gurdena@btinternet.com The closing date is 4th December 2012. I am looking to interview on the 5th/6th December 2012. Interviews can either be in person in my Chambers (1 Gray’s Inn Square) or by telephone.
Final Disclaimer – this is a research position linked solely to me and is not linked to 1 Gray’s Inn Square. Please do not call chambers and ask about the position.
‘As Many Football Defending Tactics Off the Pitch As On It’
Understanding the Tactics of Football Policing and How to Defend Football Supporters in Criminal and Civil law
Football disorder offences and football banning orders are becoming more common as increased police resources are being funneled into football policing.
Football policing is a distinct area for most police forces and defending football supporters is often very different to defending other types of criminal defendant.
Criminal lawyers will come across football supporter cases in both the Magistrates and Crown Courts, and these cases can involve both criminal law and civil law. Knowing the provisions of the Football Supporters Act in relation to Football Banning Orders is not the whole story when representing football supporters, there are often prejudices of jurors and magistrates that must be overcome.
Fans are increasingly taking civil actions against their clubs due to the retention and dissemination of their personal data, club refusal to allow entrance to disabled persons with crutches and walking sticks, and club exclusion orders and injunctions being taken out by the clubs against fans. Many of these fans are youths and in extra need of protection.
Come along to this free 2 hour training session to learn more about working on football related cases, including:-
- The specifics of football policing;
- Criminal and Civil Issues specific to football fans;
- Section 27 Orders;
- Football Banning Orders;
- What is meant by ‘football related’;
- Update on football disorder cases;
- Overcoming prejudices towards football fans in the courts;
- Using the Hillsborough report to assist your case.
Speakers:
AlisonGurden, Barrister, 1 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers, AmandaJacks of the Football Supporters Federation, and Melanie Cooke, Solicitor specialising in defending football fans.
Location: Holborn
Date: 29th November 5-7pm
Attendance is free and worth 2 CPD Points (applied for) for barristers and solicitors.
RSVP gurdena@btinternet.com or @gurdena
Football Banning Order spiraling out of control – from drinking in sight of the pitch to a 5 month prison sentence!
The news reports of the football fan who has just received a 5 month prison sentence for breaching his football banning order, makes it an opportune time to remind fans how acceptance of a football banning order, in the belief that it is a civil order, can result in a criminal conviction and prison sentence.
While I don’t have first hand knowledge of this case, and will leave you to draw your own conclusions from the news article below, the circumstances are similar to those that play out in magistrates and crown courts all over England and Wales during every football season. A Football Banning Order can be requested by the police against a fan who they police deem to be causing or likely to cause disorder at football matches. This is a civil order, and many fans will accept the order without challenge due to the fact it is civil and they are under the impression that they cannot challenge it in court. That impression is incorrect, although it is a civil order, the consequences of breaching it are criminal and as such it can be challenged from the first stage.
A civil order can be imposed on a fan by the Magistrates Court for between 3 and 5 years. If the fan breaches that order (and a breach can be as simple as entering a town on a saturday where the fan’s team are playing) then the fan can face a prison sentence. If it is a Home game, this often means that a fan, subject to a football banning order, who takes his or her family into town on a Saturday can be arrested. The breach then becomes a criminal case and this can result in prison.
The fan may consider that the alleged incident in or outside of the football ground which resulted in the football banning order was a minor incident. They may also consider that taking their family into town on a Saturday is a minor incident and as such they will be able to talk their way out of it with the Police or the Magistrates Court. This is a big mistake. The Football Banning Order is a court order and the courts take the breach of one of their orders very seriously. So the simple facts of the case will not excuse the fan, the fact they have breached a court order will mean that they will likely be sentenced to a criminal sanction which can include imprisonment. And hence the minor incident has a life changing effect on the fan, a criminal record, and possibly a period at Her Majesty’s Pleasure!
The key to all of this is not to immediately accept the order, or panic when a summons arrives on the doorstep or is handed over by a police officer. It is best to seek legal advice at the earliest opportunity, and most lawyers specializing in football banning orders will provide their initial advice for free. But even if things have started to spiral out of control, and a criminal conviction for breaching an order is looming, seek advice. Not only the future of attending football matches, but also of work and liberty may depend on whether advice is sought.
5 month prison sentence all started with drinking in sight of the pitch at a football match
alisongurden 