Arbery & Anor, R. v

A football banning order under Football Spectators Act 1989 may be made only where the statutory precondition of a relevant offence is met. For violence occurring during a period relevant to a football match, the decisive question is the relationship between the offence and that match. The offenders’ presence near a match, their allegiance, or the fact that they had travelled as supporters is insufficient.

Where violence was caused by an unrelated dispute and was not connected with anything occurring at, or between supporters of, the matches, the offence does not relate to either match. The court then has no jurisdiction to make a football banning order.

The appellants were convicted at the Crown Court at Inner London of violent disorder after a street fight involving supporters of Northampton Town and Charlton Athletic. They were each sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment and made subject to a six-year football banning order.

The fight occurred after the groups had separately attended football matches. The investigating evidence indicated that it did not directly concern the matches and that it began with an apparently racist remark. The Recorder nevertheless held that the violence was football related because it arose from the participants’ support for their teams.

The appellants sought to appeal out of time against the banning orders. The central issue was whether their violent-disorder offences related to either football match for the purposes of the Football Spectators Act 1989.

1. The court extended time, granted leave, and allowed the appeals against the football banning orders. The convictions and custodial sentences were not challenged.
2. Under section 14A of the Football Spectators Act 1989, a banning order can be made only following conviction for a relevant offence. In the circumstances of this case, that required the violent offence to have been committed during the relevant period and to relate to one of the football matches attended by the participants.
3. The statutory inquiry concerns the connection between the offence and the match. It is not satisfied merely because the defendants were football supporters, had travelled to London for matches, or would not otherwise have been present.
4. The violence arose from an unrelated disagreement, apparently involving a racist remark, rather than from anything occurring at the matches or between rival supporters in connection with them. It therefore did not relate to either match.
5. The Recorder consequently lacked jurisdiction to impose the banning orders. Each order was quashed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): extended time for applications for leave to appeal, granted leave, and quashed the football banning orders: [2008] EWCA Crim 702.
• Crown Court at Inner London: the appellants were convicted of violent disorder, sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, and each made subject to a six-year football banning order.