Football Banning Orders and the fatal flaw...

[Guest]

Just written this piece, having read the latest judgment on Football Banning Orders by the Court of Appeal.

Could have serious implications for those fans guilty of minor offences.

[Voll Blau]

Great read Lisa. It's a shame more football fans aren't as clued-up (or as bothered) as you are about the way supporters are treated in this country.

[Guest]

Thanks!

Football has had its problems, but the vast majority of fans are law abiding citizens. It annoys me that we are all treated like potential criminals.

[Guest MattP]

I actually considering trying to get myself one to save me the hassle of going every week. Just can't be bothered with the court appearance.

[1964FOX]

This is something I am interested in also and although there is a danger an FBO could e issued for a minor offence I would suggest this is unlikely. Those whom attend football matches expressly to cause disorder are well known to the police and it is those people who are in danger of getting an FBO and quite rightly so in my opinion. Someone who commits a random public order offence whilst in the area and at a time of. Football match is likely to be dealt with proportionately and in line with a similar offence committed at any other time and place.

In your article you ask how many revellers are subject to similar restrictions. I can answer th by saying there are numerous dispersal notices issued to people in our city centre every Thursday, Friday and Saturday night.

[Guest MattP]

Some absolutely ridiculous ones are given out, I remember a couple of the lads who ran on the pitch at Southend celebrating our promotion were hit with 5 year banning orders.

[Daggers]

Some absolutely ridiculous ones are given out, I remember a couple of the lads who ran on the pitch at Southend celebrating our promotion were hit with 5 year banning orders.

Which should instantly find a successful appeal by calling into account White, R (on the application of) v Crown Court At Blackfriars [2008] EWHC 510 (Admin) - Which held: (1) As a starting point, a banning order should only be imposed where there are strong grounds for concluding that the individual subject of the order has a propensity for taking part in football hooliganism.

In the case you cite they were neither taking part in an act of hooliganism or giving an indication to undertake such in the future.

[Guest MattP]

Which should instantly find a successful appeal by calling into account White, R (on the application of) v Crown Court At Blackfriars [2008] EWHC 510 (Admin) - Which held: (1) As a starting point, a banning order should only be imposed where there are strong grounds for concluding that the individual subject of the order has a propensity for taking part in football hooliganism.

In the case you cite they were neither taking part in an act of hooliganism or giving an indication to undertake such in the future.

Let's hope the lads in question were given that advice at the time.

Found the article.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Leicester-City-fans-banned-pitch-invasion/story-12049739-detail/story.html

[Daggers]

Let's hope the lads in question were given that advice at the time.

Found the article.

http://www.thisislei...tail/story.html

Maybe there was additional evidence presented to the magistrates in the form of video footage of other behaviour?

• When the police have evidence that an individual has previously caused or been involved in violence or disorder and continues to pose a threat they can ask a magistrate’s court to impose a football banning order on the basis of an array of evidence (e.g. video recordings gathered at home or abroad, overseas convictions for violence or disorder, police intelligence reports, etc).
  

[1964FOX]

Let's hope the lads in question were given that advice at the time.

Found the article.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Leicester-City-fans-banned-pitch-invasion/story-12049739-detail/story.html

Well I stand corrected, this is an absolutely ridiculous use of a banning order and a different length of ban for the same offence. We don't know all the factors and any history but on the face of it a way ver the top decision especially in the circumstances of th occasion.

[Guest MattP]

Who knows, possible I suppose.

Still find it strange you can end up going to a game legally, run on the pitch to celebrate a goal and end up not being allowed back for 5 years.

[Daggers]

Well I stand corrected, this is an absolutely ridiculous use of a banning order and a different length of ban for the same offence. We don't know all the factors and any history but on the face of it a way ver the top decision especially in the circumstances of th occasion.

Because, as I pointed out, there has to be additional evidence presented in court which has not be reported on the wire.

[Saxondale]

Thanks!

Football has had its problems, but the vast majority of fans are law abiding citizens. It annoys me that we are all treated like potential criminals.

We are all treated as potential criminals, regardless of whether or not we're watching a football game. That's why civil servants sit at the side of the road in Transit vans, zapping cars at random in the hope that they're breaking the speed limit.

[Guest]

This is something I am interested in also and although there is a danger an FBO could e issued for a minor offence I would suggest this is unlikely. Those whom attend football matches expressly to cause disorder are well known to the police and it is those people who are in danger of getting an FBO and quite rightly so in my opinion. Someone who commits a random public order offence whilst in the area and at a time of. Football match is likely to be dealt with proportionately and in line with a similar offence committed at any other time and place.

In your article you ask how many revellers are subject to similar restrictions. I can answer th by saying there are numerous dispersal notices issued to people in our city centre every Thursday, Friday and Saturday night.

My concerns are that fans are not given adequate advice. I know fans who have accepted cautions or fixed penalty notices rather than being arrested, and challenging the police as to why they have been singled out. I'm not a fan of either cautions or FPNs, but that's another argument...

As for the last sentence, forgive my ignorance, but how do you know? This is a genuine question, by the way.

Also, dispersal notices are only applicable for 24 hours, not a minimum of 3 years. I would like to know if anybody has been subjected to conditions excluding them from areas for the duration of a non-custodial sentence, or given an ASBO with such requirements, as these would be more comparable.

[Guest]

That answered that then...