Parkes, R. v

An offence may relate to a regulated football match for the purposes of a football banning order where the violence arises from rivalry between supporters and the circumstances show a real connection with that match. The inquiry is fact-specific. It is not decisive that one group of supporters did not attend the match, or that its own planned match was cancelled.

A declaration is not invalid merely because it fails expressly to identify the match, where there was only one qualifying match and the judge’s reference can only have concerned that match.

The appellants pleaded guilty to using threatening words or behaviour contrary to section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986. The offences arose when Wolverhampton Wanderers supporters confronted West Bromwich Albion supporters shortly after West Bromwich Albion had played Peterborough United.

At Wolverhampton Crown Court, the appellants received suspended prison sentences, unpaid-work requirements, prosecution costs and four-year football banning orders. Cartwright also received a curfew requirement. They appealed only the banning orders and costs orders.

The central issue was whether their offences related to the West Bromwich Albion v Peterborough United match within Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989.

1. Appeals dismissed. The court held that the offences were relevant offences related to the West Bromwich Albion v Peterborough United match. The football banning orders were therefore properly made.

2. Under section 14A and Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1989, the question whether an offence relates to a match depends on the facts. The authorities did not establish a general rule. The court nevertheless treated the source or “spark” of the violence as a useful inquiry.

3. The West Bromwich Albion supporters were together because of the match. The judge was entitled to find that Wolverhampton supporters knowingly went to the location where those supporters would be and sought a confrontation arising from rivalry between the clubs. The appellants joined that football-related hostility. It did not matter that Wolverhampton had not played a match that day.

4. The court applied the approach described in R v Elliott and others [2007] EWCA Crim 1002: violence may relate to a football match even if its immediate spark is not intrinsically football-related. Here, however, the court held that the spark was football rivalry itself.

5. The sentencing judge’s declaration was defective because it did not identify the particular match. The defect did not invalidate the order. There was only one qualifying match, and the declaration could only have referred to it.

6. The costs orders were also upheld. Participants in public disorder of this scale could expect proceedings to be brought in the Crown Court, notwithstanding that the eventual convictions were for lesser offences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeals against the football banning orders and prosecution costs.
• Wolverhampton Crown Court: on 21 May 2010 sentenced the appellants for section 4 offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and made four-year football banning orders under the Football Spectators Act 1989.