Travelling to Spain v England? Do you know what to do if the police detain you at the airport?
Despite the fact there are very few British fans involved in trouble at overseas football matches, Sections 21A,B & C of the Football Supporters Act 1989 are very draconian and may permit a police officer to detain an innocent fan and hold them until after their flight has departed. In other words, stopping an innocent fan from attending overseas matches, despite the fact they have paid for the plane ticket, accommodation, and tickets to the matches.
So what does the law really say on this?
A police officer in uniform, not in civvies, may detain a British football fan for 4 hours ( or 6 with the approval of an Inspector or above) at an airport or port, but at the time of the detention they must have reasonable grounds to suspect the fan has caused or contributed to violence or disorder previously. This means the Police officer cannot just detain a fan they don’t like the look of.
Any detention without this reasonable suspicion will be unlawful detention. The ‘gut feeling’ of the officer that the fan may commit disorder in the future is not enough there has to be something indicating the fan has been involved in disorder in the past.
If there is something in the past, the officer must also have a reasonable suspicion that the fan is likely to be involved in disorder at a football match in the future. If the officer holds both of these suspicions he can issue a notice requiring the fan to attend the Magistrates Court within 24 hours, they can also take away the fans passport until they get to court.
If the officer believes that the fan will not turn up at court, for example by saying “well I am going to get on the flight anyway”, they can arrest the fan and detain them for up to 24 hours until they are taken to court.
These measures don’t require a lot of police information or intelligence to justify a ‘reasonable suspicion’. A football intelligence officer can pretty much sit in Starbucks at the airport sipping their hot chocolate and watching social media on their iPhone. Tweets such as “England fans ready to cause havoc” alongside a group of fans in the airport holding up their pint glasses, with a pin showing their location is probably all a keen football intelligence officer will need for that ‘reasonable suspicion’.
It shouldn’t be the case that fans face such gross restrictions of their freedom of movement and expression, but sadly successive Governments seem to think that football fans don’t have the same rights as the rest of society, and until the fans start to campaign against these harsh measures they won’t change. In the meantime, if you are travelling to the International Friendlies, be careful with your social media use.
I prepared a leaflet for the World Cup, but the same applies to all International matches. Print off my guide to your rights, to fold and keep in your passport.
Why the Reading Chronicle demonisation of football fans affects more than football
Some of you may have seen my strongly worded tweets last week when the Reading Chronicle published it’s inflammatory, factually incorrect and misleading article suggesting that Reading FC fans (or at least a large contingent of them) are football hooligans and it is only due to the hard work of the police and the Reading FC management that it was all being kept under control. This was complimented by a staged photo of a person wearing a Reading FC shirt, a scarf wrapped around their face, carrying a piece of wood and looking ‘thuggish’.
Not only was the article poorly written and the journalist clearly hadn’t done his research as he seemed to be unaware of the Hillsborough developments over the past year, but it was also potentially very damaging to football fans.
Many of the inaccuracies in the article (and there are too many to mention) have already been addressed by other fans and journalists see Reading FC fan Jon Keen’s response http://thetilehurstend.sbnation.com/2014/3/20/5529246/tawdry-and-offensive-journalism-at-its-best and the Liverpool Echo’s article http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/reading-chronicle-issues-unreserved-apology-6861586
The suggestion that the reason there is no trouble at Reading FC is solely due to the police and Reading FC, is rubbish. It is suggested that the police have worked so well with the Club that police have not been required to police at many Reading matches. This shows a complete lack of awareness of football policing. The main thrust of football policing is identifying and managing risk supporters. The police charge a football club for all policing required inside the Ground and also on what is called ‘The Footprint’, the area surrounding the Ground where police identify that they need to be in attendance before, during and after the game. In the case of Reading, the Footprint is not very large due to the location of the Madejski Stadium being away from the town and major transport hubs. if there is any suggestion that there will be risk supporters in attendance at a match the police will insist on having officers inside the ground and on The Footprint. The Footprint can be a bone of contention with Clubs as they often have to pay heavily for the policing outside of the ground even when the Club considers there is no need. Leeds United FC challenged this footprint charging by West Yorks Police a few years ago in the High Court http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/jul/24/leeds-united-win-police-costs I have spoken to Club Chairmen and Directors who often complain that effectively the Footprint is being used as an excuse to fund police overtime, and policing of the leisure parks and towns at a weekend.
The Reading Chronicle and Thames Valley Police have acknowledged that many of the Games were unpoliced (although I assume that the football intelligence officers and football spotters would have been in attendance still as they usually still attend a non-policed match). The significance of this is that the police football intelligence must have indicated that there would be no risk supporters at these matches and that all other fans are recognised as law abiding, and well behaved. Not the thugs and hooligans the Reading Chronicle would like them to be.
So why is the Reading Chronicle article likely to harm football fans if they are all law abiding?
Let’s face it much of the media and the general public have a dim view of football fans. The fact that an MP felt it appropriate to call football fans on a night out in Covent Garden, ‘Scum’ without checking his facts, shows the disrespect football fans face. The Met Police who were in attendance had no complaint about fan behaviour, and the trash that had been left behind by the fans was because the Borough removed most of the bins as part of its cost cutting measures.
The problem with the Reading Chronicle articles is that it can create ‘guilt by association’. Employers in the local area may check the social media of potential employees, and a fan who writes a tweet or a Facebook post about their trip to Reading FC on Saturday may be seen by the potential employer as a bit of a risk, they may be a hooligan. Cafés and bars in town may decide that they don’t want to serve a Latte to a fan incase they cause trouble. And so on…
If you think I am being sensationalist, consider this. I had a call a few weeks ago about a fan who had been arrested for drink driving. He pleaded guilty, and when the Crown Prosecution Service explained the facts, the first thing the court was told was that the driver was a football fan and a season ticket was found on him when he was arrested. In actual fact he was not driving from a match, but had gone home after the match, not having had a drink at the match, had gone out that evening to a friend’s house where he had drunk alcohol and caught a taxi home. He was arrested the next day as he drove to work and unknown to him he was slightly over the legal alcohol limit. The first question the Magistrates asked was whether they could make a football banning order on him. The case was even adjourned off so that the Crown Prosecution Service could enquire with the police about making a football banning application. What should have been a simple drink driving sentencing matter of a fine and disqualification from driving turned into a complete fiasco and a waste of a great deal of tax payers money due to the fact the driver was a football fan. Fortunately, in that case the solicitor for the driver and the football intelligence officer both agreed that it was nonsense for the court to consider a football banning order , but it is evidence of the attitude towards football fans.
My non football fan friends could not understand why I was so upset by the Reading Chronicle article…hopefully this now explains why.
Smoke Bombs, Flares and Football Matches = Arrest, Prison and a Football Banning Order
Following on from the recent publicity about the use of flares and smoke bombs at football matches, and a lot of queries to my blog about the police powers in this area I have put together a question and answer section on the subject.
Be warned that even though fans may not think that having a smoke bomb or flare in their pocket is a serious offence, the police and football club take it very serious and even a fan with no previous convictions faces a real risk of going to prison…Spread the word to your friends and other fans…
Is it an offence to let off a flare or firework in a public place?
There are a few exceptions to this, but the simplest answer is YES, it is an offence and usually results in a fixed penalty notice and a fine. If that public place is a football stadium the stakes are raised considerably as it can then result in a 3 month prison sentence.
It is not an offence just to carry a smoke bomb or flare outside the stadium, is it?
YES – just carrying a smoke bomb, flare or firework in the area of the football stadium can be an offence if the police can show that you were attempting to enter the ground with it on you. I have seen cases where the police have arrested a fan with a flare as they came out of the train station closest to the ground. The police have argued that as the fan had a ticket for the game, was wearing colors and was with other fans, and was walking in the direction of the ground, that this showed that the fan would have attempted to enter the ground had they not been stopped by the police. That’s not to say that in some cases, the police interpretation of ‘attempting to enter’ shouldn’t be challenged in court, as there must be legal argument that a fan who is stopped at London Bridge Station about to get on a train to a football gound in South London is not ‘attempting to enter’, but the closer the fan is to the ground, the more likely the police will be able to argue that the fan was ‘attempting to enter’.
I won’t be committing an offence if I have a smoke bomb in my pocket in the ground but don’t let it off, will I?
YES – the law is very clear on this point, you don’t have to let it off, just having it on you in the ground is enough for you to be charged with an offence.
I won’t go to prison if I am found with a flare on me, but I don’t let it off, will I?
YES – you may be sent to prison. Recent cases have shown that the courts do not take pity on those found in possession of flares, smoke bombs or fireworks. In fact they are giving severe punishments and fans with no previous convictions are being given 3 months in prison, and on appeal the courts are upholding the 3 months prison sentence. The excuses of “I was just carrying it for a mate” or ‘A mate just gave it to me as we left the ground and I didn’t know what it was” are not being given much credit by the courts. If it is in the fan’s pocket, the fan is guilty and probably will go to prison.
Do the police have the power to stop and search me on the way to the ground to see if I have a smoke bomb, flare of firework on me?
YES – they have powers to stop and search you, and arrest you if they find any of these items on you.
But they can’t arrest me after the game when I am walking away from the ground with the flare in my pocket can they?
YES – if they can show that you were in the ground and that you are likely to have had the flare, smoke bomb or firework in your pocket while in the ground, they can arrest you, and you will probably be charged.
If I am convicted of having a smoke bomb, flare or firework will I also get a Football Banning Order?
YES – the police will probably apply for an Football Banning Order, and due to the nature of the offence, it will be highly likely that the court will consider that the offence was football related. If the court does decide to issue a football banning order, it will likely be for between 3 and 6 years (in addition to any other sentence such as prison).
The police can’t apply for a Football Banning Order on me unless they charge me, can they?
YES – if the police can show that they suspect you of having involvement with flares, smoke bombs or fireworks in the ground or outside the ground just before or after the match, they will probably apply for a civil football banning order which can be imposed even if you are not convicted of any offences.
What is a firework?
Even a sparkler falls within the definition of firework, as do bangers and anything else that has a firework logo on it.
What is a smoke bomb?
Anything which emits smoke or visible gas, even something which is home made.
How will the police know that I have the flare or smoke bomb on me?
In addition to the general powers of stop and search, the police will be checking the fan forums and any known fan groups which discuss the use of flares, smoke bombs or fireworks will be targeted by the police, and will likely be stopped and searched. In addition, the stewards in the ground have the powers to search and if they find a flare, smoke bomb or firework, they will tell the police, and due to the information sharing agreements between police forces and clubs, the police will automatically tell the club if a fan is arrested for possession or use of pyro. I have dealt with cases where football clubs have banned for life the pyro user and their friends, even though there was no evidence that the friends even knew about the pyro before it was used.
In general, if there is one thing that the police and courts are very hot on at the moment it is flares and smoke bombs. Carry one and you are very likely going to face time in a police cell…and worse…time in a prison cell! Add to this the fact that Clubs are facing fines from the FA and UEFA when pyro is used in their stadium, Clubs are also issuing very long bans for fans found in possession of any pyro.
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.
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 