Tweet
Our draconian anti-hooliganism legislation unfairly infringes the free movement of football supporters
Associating with undesirables? Football fans can come under suspicion for merely standing near known troublemakers. Photograph: Tom Jenkins/Guardian
Without necessarily ever having been found to have committed a crime, you're put on a secret list that the police keep of people who pose a "risk". Your activities are monitored along with those of others on the list; you're never notified that you're on the list, or told what it means; then you come to court for something relatively minor, maybe swearing in a particular sort of public place, or pushing someone in a crowd, and your life changes.
The police apply for an order curtailing your movements, you are forced to surrender your passport at certain times, and to report to the police. The application is made on the basis of reports of you associating with other people on the list, the very fact that you have been placed on this list is itself a reason for the police to get their order, and you have to defend yourself against allegations of being complicit in the activities of others who pose a "risk" even when those people can go unnamed, and the officers who have reported incidents go unidentified in the Crown's case against you.
You therefore cannot challenge directly the witnesses to these incidents, and the aspersion is cast without any clear criteria ever having been given as to what being a "risk" means, or warnings that you may be associating with others who are themselves a "risk". Given this, you would hope that the test for the court in deciding if the police can have their order is a severe one, but the court "must make such an order if it is shown that the person has previously caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere … and if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a banning order would help prevent [activity-] related violence or disorder in England and Wales or elsewhere". This is, in short, the punishment of future crime.
You might be forgiven for thinking that I describe in the above paragraph members of a fundamentalist cell, and that the [activity] mentioned above was terrorism, but this is the position that you can find yourself in if you regularly attend football matches.
A person will have been convicted of some offence, perhaps shoving a rival fan, or swearing at a steward, and they may then find themselves banned from attending their team's matches, have to hand their passport to the police whenever England play abroad, and have to report to a police station regularly. If you forget to hand your passport in, arrest soon follows. There are of course going to be circumstances where these measures might be appropriate. I have prosecuted cases in which police have been seriously assaulted while dealing with large, drunken groups of spectators – although the violence isn't always one way.
But there are major problems in giving the police these powers with such a low threshold. The court has no discretion to not grant this banning order where "reasonable grounds for believing" that the ban would "help prevent" violence or disorder are established – hardly a heavy burden to prove when the allegation is put that a fan's presence, chants or behaviour may encourage crowd activity resulting in disorder. Even shouting about the onanistic habits of the referee might fall into this category.
This law came into sharp focus for me this week when before a court came a man who drives a bus as part of the logistical support for away game fixtures. He has been a fan of his club for three decades, and he was never found guilty of any violent crime or disorder until he was prosecuted for public disorder for pushing a member of the public and a steward, causing no injuries and resulting in a fine of several hundred pounds.
At this point the police told him that he was a "risk" fan, and brought out a large police report of all the times he has facilitated "risk" groups. This man has driven men, women, young, old – anyone who wanted to come and be a part of the away game support for his club. The police report also disclosed that he attended a pub frequented by "risk" supporters of another team, as if to suggest that anybody in the pub knows that they are on these watchlists, or that the pub is advertised as such. On another occasion a bottle is said to have been thrown from the bus by another "risk" fan, who is unnamed in the police report.
Indeed, nobody else is named in the report, so when this man has the misfortune to be on the same train platform waiting for a to go home from an away match, and an unnamed "risk" fan is alleged to have smashed a bottle on the platform, this is argued to be an act of public disorder somehow connected to this man simply because he is there.
The legislation seeks to deal with organised football violence by connecting the activities of those who misbehave at football matches, but what it actually does is punish the serious, loyal fans who attend home and away matches, who may well unknowingly fraternise with "risk" fans, may offer them lifts, share train carriages with them, or speak to them in the pub. The present law requires courts to impose drastic limitations on the freedoms of these loyal fans if they make a single mistake which allows the police to draw the inference that these "risk" fans are acting together to encourage each other into further acts of violence and disorder.
The howling argument in retaliation will be that these people have it coming, that we should not break the law. But if you swear at someone, or push them, even causing minor injury, the reality is that you will not face a tough penalty – unless, that is, you are a football fan. The consequences of the banning order on travel during international tournaments is severe. For no other type of offence of this seriousness are the punishments anywhere near as restrictive or long-lasting. You are also in some cases depriving fans of a great source of joy, their occupation, their passion.
Men and women should not be held to be guilty for the acts of others with whom they associate, and football fans should be innocent of any acts until proven guilty, rather than banned from their passion on the basis of "police intelligence" which has not been subject to the scrutiny of a trial process. The example of the bus driver is not fictional; it is an ongoing case the anonymous details of which I have given are public record. Nobody wants us to be known internationally as a nation of football hooligans, but if the price to be paid for not living in a state where McCarthyist practices are employed in relation to fans of the national game is that from time to time the police have to prosecute what they consider to be acts of disorder, rather than secretly holding them against individuals until long past the time when a fair trial could be had and then pulling them out to ban people from travel, that's a price worth paying.
This liberal-minded coalition must repeal the law requiring courts to impose football banning orders, and restrict the use of police intelligence in courts.
Associating with undesirables? Football fans can come under suspicion for merely standing near known troublemakers. Photograph: Tom Jenkins/Guardian
Without necessarily ever having been found to have committed a crime, you're put on a secret list that the police keep of people who pose a "risk". Your activities are monitored along with those of others on the list; you're never notified that you're on the list, or told what it means; then you come to court for something relatively minor, maybe swearing in a particular sort of public place, or pushing someone in a crowd, and your life changes.
The police apply for an order curtailing your movements, you are forced to surrender your passport at certain times, and to report to the police. The application is made on the basis of reports of you associating with other people on the list, the very fact that you have been placed on this list is itself a reason for the police to get their order, and you have to defend yourself against allegations of being complicit in the activities of others who pose a "risk" even when those people can go unnamed, and the officers who have reported incidents go unidentified in the Crown's case against you.
You therefore cannot challenge directly the witnesses to these incidents, and the aspersion is cast without any clear criteria ever having been given as to what being a "risk" means, or warnings that you may be associating with others who are themselves a "risk". Given this, you would hope that the test for the court in deciding if the police can have their order is a severe one, but the court "must make such an order if it is shown that the person has previously caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere … and if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a banning order would help prevent [activity-] related violence or disorder in England and Wales or elsewhere". This is, in short, the punishment of future crime.
You might be forgiven for thinking that I describe in the above paragraph members of a fundamentalist cell, and that the [activity] mentioned above was terrorism, but this is the position that you can find yourself in if you regularly attend football matches.
A person will have been convicted of some offence, perhaps shoving a rival fan, or swearing at a steward, and they may then find themselves banned from attending their team's matches, have to hand their passport to the police whenever England play abroad, and have to report to a police station regularly. If you forget to hand your passport in, arrest soon follows. There are of course going to be circumstances where these measures might be appropriate. I have prosecuted cases in which police have been seriously assaulted while dealing with large, drunken groups of spectators – although the violence isn't always one way.
But there are major problems in giving the police these powers with such a low threshold. The court has no discretion to not grant this banning order where "reasonable grounds for believing" that the ban would "help prevent" violence or disorder are established – hardly a heavy burden to prove when the allegation is put that a fan's presence, chants or behaviour may encourage crowd activity resulting in disorder. Even shouting about the onanistic habits of the referee might fall into this category.
This law came into sharp focus for me this week when before a court came a man who drives a bus as part of the logistical support for away game fixtures. He has been a fan of his club for three decades, and he was never found guilty of any violent crime or disorder until he was prosecuted for public disorder for pushing a member of the public and a steward, causing no injuries and resulting in a fine of several hundred pounds.
At this point the police told him that he was a "risk" fan, and brought out a large police report of all the times he has facilitated "risk" groups. This man has driven men, women, young, old – anyone who wanted to come and be a part of the away game support for his club. The police report also disclosed that he attended a pub frequented by "risk" supporters of another team, as if to suggest that anybody in the pub knows that they are on these watchlists, or that the pub is advertised as such. On another occasion a bottle is said to have been thrown from the bus by another "risk" fan, who is unnamed in the police report.
Indeed, nobody else is named in the report, so when this man has the misfortune to be on the same train platform waiting for a to go home from an away match, and an unnamed "risk" fan is alleged to have smashed a bottle on the platform, this is argued to be an act of public disorder somehow connected to this man simply because he is there.
The legislation seeks to deal with organised football violence by connecting the activities of those who misbehave at football matches, but what it actually does is punish the serious, loyal fans who attend home and away matches, who may well unknowingly fraternise with "risk" fans, may offer them lifts, share train carriages with them, or speak to them in the pub. The present law requires courts to impose drastic limitations on the freedoms of these loyal fans if they make a single mistake which allows the police to draw the inference that these "risk" fans are acting together to encourage each other into further acts of violence and disorder.
The howling argument in retaliation will be that these people have it coming, that we should not break the law. But if you swear at someone, or push them, even causing minor injury, the reality is that you will not face a tough penalty – unless, that is, you are a football fan. The consequences of the banning order on travel during international tournaments is severe. For no other type of offence of this seriousness are the punishments anywhere near as restrictive or long-lasting. You are also in some cases depriving fans of a great source of joy, their occupation, their passion.
Men and women should not be held to be guilty for the acts of others with whom they associate, and football fans should be innocent of any acts until proven guilty, rather than banned from their passion on the basis of "police intelligence" which has not been subject to the scrutiny of a trial process. The example of the bus driver is not fictional; it is an ongoing case the anonymous details of which I have given are public record. Nobody wants us to be known internationally as a nation of football hooligans, but if the price to be paid for not living in a state where McCarthyist practices are employed in relation to fans of the national game is that from time to time the police have to prosecute what they consider to be acts of disorder, rather than secretly holding them against individuals until long past the time when a fair trial could be had and then pulling them out to ban people from travel, that's a price worth paying.
This liberal-minded coalition must repeal the law requiring courts to impose football banning orders, and restrict the use of police intelligence in courts.
Comment