Football Banning Orders: Analysing Their Use in Court
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2006.70.6.509 |
| Author | Mark James,Geoff Pearson |
| Published date | 01 December 2006 |
| Date | 01 December 2006 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Football Banning Orders:
Analysing their Use in Court
Mark James* and Geoff Pearson†
Abstract In the months prior to the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany,
the government funded a number of targeted policing operations aimed at
securing Football Banning Orders against known or suspected football
hooligans. This article is based on court observations and associated inter-
views carried out in early 2006 in and around Manchester. It evaluates the
application process, the legal tests applied and the quality of the evidence
relied on by courts when determining whether the imposition of a Foot-
ball Banning Order is necessary to prevent future football-related disorder
being committed by the respondent. In particular, the analysis focuses on
whether the use of a civil procedure can continue to be justified in the
light of the punitive length of and conditions attached to these Orders,
whether the correct standard of proof is being applied by the court at all
stages of the application and whether policing tactics are focused too
narrowly on the securing of Football Banning Orders.
State responses to football crowd disorder, or ‘football hooliganism’ as it
has been labelled by the media, have typically resulted in criminal
legislation and innovations in public order policing tactics. A series of
Acts introduced between 1985 and 1994 created new offences that
could be committed by football supporters and outlawed activities such
as consuming alcohol in stadiums,1indecent and racist chanting,2invad-
ing the pitch and ticket touting.3During the same period, police strate-
gies for controlling what are currently known as ‘risk supporters’4were
also changing. In the late 1980s, policing strategies changed from reac-
tionary mass public order policing to more ‘intelligence led’ policing,
with the creation of Football Liaison Officers and the Football Intelli-
gence Unit, part of the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS).
This change in policing was complemented by the use of a new
legislative provision, the Football Banning Order (FBO), the first version
of which was introduced by s. 30 of the Public Order Act 1986.5The
purpose of FBOs was to prevent those convicted of ‘football-related’
offences6from attending future football matches in England and Wales
* Senior Lecturer at Salford Law School; e-mail m.d.james@salford.ac.uk.
†Lecturer at the Management School at the University of Liverpool; e-mail
pearsong@liverpool.ac.uk.
1 Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985, ss 1 and 2.
2 Football (Offences) Act 1991, ss 3 and 4.
3 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s. 166. For a review of the football-
related legislation up to and including the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act
1999, see G. Pearson, ‘Legislating for the Football Hooligan: a Case for Reform’ in
S. Greenfield and G. Osborn (eds), Law and Sport in Contemporary Society (Frank Cass:
London, 2000).
4 The term ‘risk supporter’ has replaced the previous labels ‘hooligan’ and
‘prominent’.
5 Although the Public Order Act Orders were originally called ‘Exclusion Orders’, for
the avoidance of confusion, the phrase Football Banning Order will be used to
encompass both the current form of the order and all its previous incarnations.
6 Public Order Act 1986, s. 31.
509
in the hope that the removal of these ‘troublemakers’ from matches
would lead to a reduction in disorder. Prior to this, the only way that a
‘hooligan’ could be prevented from attending matches was if the club in
question banned that person from entering the ground under its own
rules. However, breaching such a ban would merely lead to the banned
individual’s ejection from the home stadium and could not prevent
them travelling to away matches. Conversely, the breaching of an FBO
is a criminal offence that can lead to imprisonment.
Since 1986, the conditions that can be attached to FBOs have been
extended on three occasions. The Football Spectators Act 1989 (FSA)
gave magistrates the power to impose orders that prevented those
convicted of football-related offences from leaving the UK when English
club sides or the national team were playing abroad.7However, these
orders did not prevent several high-profile incidents involving sup-
porters of the England national team abroad, most notably in Dublin in
1995 and Marseilles at the 1998 FIFA World Cup. As a result, the
definition of ‘football-related’ was extended to encourage the imposi-
tion of more orders, and magistrates were given the power to order that
those convicted of football-related offences surrender their passports
when designated English and Welsh teams were playing abroad.8
Finally, following disorder at the UEFA European Championships in
Belgium in 2000, the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 amalgamated do-
mestic and international orders, allowing FBOs to be imposed even
where the conviction was not ‘football-related’ and created a new form
of FBO that enabled the police to apply for the imposition of an order on
a suspected hooligan ‘on complaint’.9This important development en-
sured that FBOs could be imposed on those who had not been convicted
of any offence but who were identified by the police as having ‘caused or
contributed’ to violence or disorder in relation to a football match. The
FBO would be imposed by a magistrate where he was satisfied that to do
so would help to prevent future football-related disorder.
To supplement these provisions, s. 21 of the Football (Disorder) Act
2000 gave police officers the power of summary detention during the
control period around a designated match where they believed an FBO
on complaint should be imposed on an individual. This power enables
police to trawl ports and airports in the immediate run-up to an inter-
national fixture to ensure that they have secured FBOs against all of
those suspected of being involved with football-related disorder. Al-
though technically a civil order, the FBO performs a criminal law
function, is initiated and enforced by the police and supported by
criminal law sanctions in the event of a breach. FBOs are now the
cornerstone of the Home Office’s strategy for preventing football-related
disorder, both domestically and abroad, and by the 2006 World Cup
there were 3,286 banning orders in force.10 In 2005, £5 million was set
aside by the Home Office for the purpose of developing profiles against
7 International Banning Orders were originally known as Restriction Orders.
8 Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, s. 3.
9 Introducing s. 14B into the Football Spectators Act 1989.
10 Home Office Press Release, 30 May 2006.
The Journal of Criminal Law
510
To continue reading
Request your trial