A lot is known of the ‘football hooligan’ - a person intent on causing disorder at football matches; but little is perhaps known of Football Banning Orders (FBOs) which were introduced to tackle the problem of violence at football matches
The main aim of FBOs is to prevent organised disorder at football games and deter hooligans from engaging in violence. The robust stance against football disorder is justified by Crown Prosecution Service to prevent harm to ordinary law-abiding fans and act as a deterrence.
FBOs can be very limiting in their restrictions. The most basic constraint is being banned from attending your clubs regulated matches. Restrictions can also include exclusion zones. This can prevent you from being within a 1 mile radius around home grounds, 24 hours before kick-off or excluded from entire boroughs. At the highest end of the spectrum, supporters can be banned from a 2 mile radius of every ground of the UK hosting a regulated match, which on any given weekend could amount to exclusion of up to 320 miles a week.
FBOs can last for up to 10 years if imprisonment is imminent. Under a ‘civil’ application, the minimum length is 3 years and the maximum is 5 years. FBOs also carry the requirement to hand over ones passport for ‘control periods’ before club or national teams play abroad, according to s.14 Football Spectators Act 1989. This has scuppered plans for holidays, business trips, or attending overseas funerals or weddings. As Amanda Jacks, a caseworker for the Football Supporters Federation states; football supporters join the groups of terrorists and paedophiles in society who will most commonly have their passports taken away. Her years of experience in representing football supporters, has seen those with FBO conditions having to not only surrender their passports before a friendly between Ireland v England, but also physically present themselves at a police station as a form of confirmation that they have not attended. This shows how a FBO can severely limit the freedoms of those serving them and can have disastrous impacts upon family and working lives.
An application for an FBO can be made after a conviction has been secured against an individual. This can be under specific football legislation, such as the Football (Offences) Act 1991, which involves offences such as missile throwing or encroaching the pitch. The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 deals with a range of alcohol-related offences, as well as possession of fireworks.
Some convictions may fall under general, non-specific legislation. These can be for offences such as assault which may result in physical injury to the body. This falls under legislation such as Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, or the Public Order Act 1986.
In these circumstances, an FBO can be granted under s.14A as long as:
It is important here to remind ourselves of what offences can lead to a FBO. Whilst more serious acts obviously justify its implementation, it can be for offences such as drinking alcohol on coaches or trains to or from sporting events under section 1 of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985, swearing or lightly pushing someone without causing any injury. In one case, throwing fancy dress costumes equated to ‘missile’ throwing. Committed outside of football and its unlikely any penalty will be applied and if so, very small. Committed as a football fan, and this can be used to justify limits on your freedom of movement.
The football (Disorder) Act 2000 introduced banning on complaint. This allows a ‘civil’ banning order to be put in place, if it satisfies the following test:
Based on the advice published by the CPS, violence can constitute ‘abusive or insulting words’ which can cover something as minor as swearing at a referee. As for the second part of the test, it is punishment for a future crime.
This problematic. A civil FBO is based upon an application by a Chief Constable, to a Magistrate. There is no requirement for the conviction of a criminal offence in order for an application to be made. A ‘civil’ FBO can last between 3-5 years, and can come with the draconian restrictions on movement and international travel described above. The restrictions imposed go beyond the behaviour used to justify them, and this is a fundamental problem.
The Police will play an integral role in any application for an FBO, as they are the ones policing football events and gathering evidence. The “risk” supporter definition is integral to policing football supporters, and evidence based on being a “risk” supporter is the foundation for an FBO application. Police definition of a risk supporter is:
“a person, known or not, who can be regarded as posing a possible risk to public order or anti-social behaviour, whether planned or spontaneous, at or in connection with a football event”.
Anti-social behaviour is a very wide definition that can be exploited to include activities such as chanting and gatherings in groups.
The “risk” supporter definition is very vague. It is open to muddling hooligans for ordinary fans. Police rely on general assumptions as to who is a risk supporter, such as age, gender and designers worn. This is despite the generalisation of groups being excluded by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Act which lays out the codes of practice to be observed by the Police. Ordinary fans often chant the same songs, frequent the same pubs and wear the same designers as ‘hooligans’, making this generalisation very damaging. Many of those on the inside of the legal process have commented on the secret lists of “risk” supporters that are compiled.
FBOs can be considered to be justified in order to protect the ‘ordinary fan’; but delve a bit deeper and you can see how it is often the loyal, ordinary fans who are at the greatest risk of punishment by these banning orders due to generalisations. Such focus on deterring other supporters, has led to the courts having to remind prosecutors that deterrence is not the only deciding factor in succeeding with an application in the case of R v Doyle (Ciaran) and Others [2012]. This is especially the case when FBOs restrict movement. A nation of hooligans should not be wanted or welcomed, but neither should such draconian measures.
Written by Kieran Reidy