Abstract
Legal responses to football crowd disorder in England and Wales are often seen as best-practice by authorities in other European states. This is because so-called ‘hooliganism’ was considered to be a serious problem in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s but following a series of legislative and police strategy changes, crowd disorder and violence in and around British stadia is now rare. However, while changes in policing strategy have been important in this development, we should not overestimate the impact of legislation and in particular football banning orders. Some laws have not been proven to be effective, some may be counterproductive, and other ‘non legal’ factors have played an important role in the reduction in violence and disorder. Furthermore, serious questions remain about the proportionality and legality of some policing and legislative measures when assessed against civil libertarian protections and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Dr. Geoff Pearson is Senior Lecturer in Criminal Law at the University of Manchester’s Law School. Professor Mark James is Professor of Sports Law at Manchester Metropolitan University.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
See Pratt and Salter 1984.
- 2.
- 3.
See King 2002 for a discussion of the transformation of English football in the 1990s.
- 4.
Taylor 1990.
- 5.
Stott and Pearson 2007.
- 6.
- 7.
Stott and Pearson 2007.
- 8.
The apparent decline of hooliganism in the UK was mirrored by an increase in its appearance in popular culture: the 2000s saw a proliferation of published ‘memoirs’ from self-labelled ‘reformed’ or ‘retired’ hooligans, and feature films such as I.D., Football Factory, and Green Street kept the reputation of the English hooligan alive and kicking (see Redhead 2010).
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
This refers to the avoiding of ‘colours’ (e.g. scarves and replica shirts in the team’s colours) and a preference for branded clothing, such as Stone Island, Burberry, SuperDry and North Face.
- 12.
Football matches are ‘designated’ for regulation by statutory instrument. For restrictions on alcohol consumption, for example, the Sports Grounds and Sporting Events (Designation) Order 2005 regulates ‘Association football matches in which one or both of the participating teams represents a club which is for the time being a member (whether a full or associate member) of the Football League, the Football Association Premier League, the Football Conference National Division, the Scottish Football League or Welsh Premier League, or represents a country or territory.’ (schedule 1(1)). Similar provisions with regard to which stadia are included in the Football Banning Order regime are included in the Football Spectators (Prescription) (Amendment) Order 2010 and the Safety at Sports Grounds Act 1975 states that all sports stadia with capacities of over 10,000 (or in the case of football league clubs, 5,000 following The Safety of Sports Grounds (Accommodation of Spectators) Order 1996) need a Safety Certificate in order to admit spectators.
- 13.
Pearson 2012.
- 14.
Wheatley 1972.
- 15.
All designated football grounds require a safety certificate. See above n. 12.
- 16.
Pearson and Sale 2011.
- 17.
Ibid.
- 18.
Taylor 1990, para 71.
- 19.
E.g. Following a Blackpool v. Preston ‘derby’ in 2008: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/7300326.stm.
- 20.
James 2010.
- 21.
Football (Disorder) Act 2000.
- 22.
Where a custodial sentence is imposed, which is comparatively rarely, the FBO can be in place for 6–10 years.
- 23.
Home Office, ‘Statistics on football-related arrests: 2012/13’.
- 24.
Trivizas 1981.
- 25.
Salter 1986.
- 26.
O’Neill 2005, p. 127.
- 27.
Also known as ‘bubbling’.
- 28.
Austin v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] 1 AC 564. The UK has not ratified Protocol 4 of the Convention, which provides for liberty of movement within states.
- 29.
[2007] 2 AC 105.
- 30.
The Queen (on the application of McClure and Moos) v. Commissioner of Police [2012] EWCA Civ 12, para 94.
- 31.
Moss v. McLachlan [1985] IRLR 76, para 27. In R (Laporte) v. Chief Constable of Gloucestershire [2007] 2 AC 105, it was made clear that ‘imminence’ needs to be considered as ‘immediacy’ if a restriction on liberty is to be considered proportionate when infringing an ECHR right.
- 32.
Sections 27(2)(a) and (b).
- 33.
Statement of Facts and Grounds of Claim, 15 Nov 2008, Queen’s Bench Division, 15 Nov 2008.
- 34.
Statement of Facts and Grounds of Claim: R (on application of Lyndon) v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, 15 Nov 2008, Queen’s Bench Division: para 11.
- 35.
Guidance on the use of s.27 suggested that the widest definition of ‘locality’ in the Act should be the centre of a town or city.
- 36.
Following Austin v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] 1 AC 564, it is likely that this would not now be considered a breach of Article 5, although it is possibly an infringement of Article 11 and Article 8 (due to the collection of personal information on those given the dispersal orders). Regardless, the manner in which s.27 was used in this case would still have been unlawful as the police were acting ultra vires.
- 37.
Consent Order, 9/7/09, Queen’s Bench Division. The 80 Stoke supporters received a total of £184,850 compensation (www.bbc.com/news/10412281).
- 38.
See Greenfield and Osborn 1996.
- 39.
Home Office guidance in September 2014 raised the level of authorisation for a Section 60 order to above the rank of Chief Superintendent in an attempt to reduce the number of 60 stop and searches.
- 40.
Wood v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] EWCA Civ 414.
- 41.
R (Catt) v. ACPO [2013] EWCA Civ 192.
- 42.
Wood [2009] EWCA Civ 414, per Dyson LJ at para 86.
- 43.
The use of civil rules to manage criminal/quasi-criminal behaviour, and supported by criminal law sanctions also exists in the UK in relation to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), Sexual Offender Orders and Terrorism Control Orders. This type of law is referred to as ‘hybrid law’ (Ashworth 2006; Duff and Marshall 2006; Gardiner et al. 1998) or ‘two-step’ provisions (Von Hirsch and Simester 2006) and have received criticism for infringing human rights.
- 44.
[2002] EWCA Civ 351.
- 45.
The legislation was primarily brought into prevent disorder abroad by England fans following disturbances in Marseilles (1998) and Charleroi (2000). However, evidence from arrest statistics and football intelligence officers suggests that those English fans who engage in disorder abroad are typically not known to the authorities and therefore would not be subjected to a s.14B application in the first place (see Stott and Pearson 2007).
- 46.
From de Freitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing [1999] 1 AC 69.
- 47.
This is debated in more detail in Stott and Pearson 2006.
- 48.
Paragraph 90. His Lordship applied B v. Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary [2001] 1 WLR 340 at p. 354 and R (McCann) v. Manchester Crown Court [2001] 1 WLR 1084 at p. 1102 in making this ruling.
- 49.
James and Pearson 2006. S.14b applications were observed being rejected in Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset v. Bargh, Bristol Magistrates Court 27 January 2011 and Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis v. Melody, Tower Bridge Magistrates Court 9 July 2012.
- 50.
(2010) 50 E.H.R.R. SE6, para 50.
- 51.
Stott et al. 2012.
- 52.
Ibid.
- 53.
Leeds United Football Club Ltd v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] EWHC 2113 (QB). Even then, these services must be reasonable and technically requested by the club (Chief Constable of Greater Manchester v. Wigan Athletic AFC LTD [2008] EWCA Civ 1449).
- 54.
The dramatic increase in the latter is demonstrated in the 2013/14 arrest statistics.
- 55.
See Stott et al. 2012.
References
Ashworth A (2006) Four threats to the presumption of innocence. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 10:241–278
Crabbe T (2003) The Public Gets What the Public Wants: England Football Fans, ‘Truth’ Claims and Mediated Realities. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 38:413–425
Duff R, Marshall S (2006) How offensive can you get? In: Von Hirsch A, Simester A (eds) Incivilities: Regulating offensive behaviour. Hart, Oxford, pp. 57–90
Gardiner J et al. (1998) Clause I – The hybrid law from hell? Criminal Justice Matters 31:25–27
Greenfield S, Osborn G (1996) After the act: The (re)construction of football fandom. Journal of Civil Liberties 1:7–28
James M (2010) Sports Law. Palgrave, MacMillan
James M, Pearson G (2006) Football Banning Orders: Analysing their use in court. Journal of Criminal Law 70:509–525
King A (2002) The end of the terraces: The transformation of English football in the 1990s. Leicester University Press, London
O’Neill M (2005) Policing Football: Social interaction and negotiated disorder. Palgrave, MacMillan
Pearson G (1998) ‘The English Disease’? The socio-legal construction of football hooliganism. Youth and Policy 60:1–15
Pearson G (2012) An ethnography of English football fans: Cans, cops and carnivals. Manchester University Press, Manchester
Pearson G, Sale A (2011) On the Lash: Revisiting the effectiveness of alcohol controls at football matches. Journal of Policing and Society 21:1–17
Redhead S (2010) Little hooliganz: The inside story of glamorous lads, football hooligans and post-subculturalism. Entertainment and Sports Law Journal 8:33–72
Rookwood J (2009) Fan perspectives of football hooliganism: Defining, analysing and responding to the British phenomenon. VDM Publishing House, Saarbrücken
Pratt J, Salter M (1984) A fresh look at football hooliganism. Leisure Studies 3:201–230
Salter M (1986) Judicial responses to football hooliganism. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 37:280–292
Stott C, Pearson G (2006) Football banning orders, proportionality and public order. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 45:241–254
Stott C, Pearson G (2007) Football hooliganism: policing and the ear on the English Disease. Pennant Books, London
Stott C, Hoggett J, Pearson G (2012) Keeping the peace: Social identity, procedural justice and the policing of football crowds. British Journal of Criminology 52:381–399
Taylor Lord Justice (1990) Hillsborough Stadium Disaster Final Report. HMSO Cm. 962, London
Trivizas E (1981) Sentencing the football hooligan. British Journal of Criminology 21:342–349
Von Hirsch A, Simester A (2006) Regulating offensive conduct through two-step prohibitions. In: Von Hirsch A, Simester A (eds) Incivilities: Regulating offensive behaviour. Hart, Oxford, pp 173–194
Ward C (1989) Steaming In: The Journal of a Football Fan. Pocket Books, London
Weed M (2001) Ing-Ger-Land at Euro 2000: How ‘handbags at 20 paces’ was portrayed as a full-scale riot. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 34:407–424
Wheatley Lord (1972) Report of the inquiry into crowd safety at sports grounds. HMSO Cmnd 4962, London
Williams J, Dunning E, Murphy P (1989) Hooligans abroad. Routledge, London
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
James, M., Pearson, G. (2016). Legal Responses to Football Crowd Disorder and Violence in England and Wales. In: Tsoukala, A., Pearson, G., Coenen, P. (eds) Legal Responses to Football Hooliganism in Europe. ASSER International Sports Law Series. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-108-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-108-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-107-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-108-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)
