The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Thorpe

Where the statutory conditions for a football banning order are proved, the court must impose the order defined by the Football Spectators Act 1989. The prohibition cannot be limited to particular matches or teams. Judicial discretion arises later, when deciding whether to impose additional requirements under section 14G.

Attendance at professional football matches as a paying spectator does not engage Article 8. If Article 8 is engaged, the interference is justified as necessary to prevent disorder.

The Commissioner appealed by way of case stated from the Ealing Magistrates’ Court, which had made a three-year football banning order against Jamie Thorpe under section 14B of the Football Spectators Act 1989. The Justices accepted that the statutory conditions were met but limited the prohibition to matches involving Fulham and either Chelsea or Brentford.

The central issue was whether the court had power to limit a banning order to particular matches or teams, and whether Convention rights required that construction.

1. Appeal allowed. The stated question was answered “No”. Once the two conditions in section 14B(4) are proved, the court must make the banning order defined by section 14(4). That order prohibits attendance at any regulated football match in the United Kingdom and cannot be limited to particular matches or teams (paras [11]–[13], [21], [28]).
2. R v Ciaran Doyle and Others [2012] EWCA Crim 995 was not strictly binding because the issue had not been necessary to that decision. It was nevertheless persuasive, and the court adopted its construction of section 14(4)(a) (paras [8], [11]–[13]).
3. The comparison with antisocial behaviour orders was rejected. The Football Spectators Act 1989 creates a narrow scheme in which Parliament has determined the mandatory prohibition once the threshold conditions are met. The court has no discretion at that stage to tailor the order (paras [21]–[22], [27]).
4. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 did not require a different construction. Attendance at professional football matches as a paying spectator falls outside the private sphere protected by Article 8. If Article 8 were engaged, the prohibition would be justified as necessary to prevent disorder (paras [14]–[21], [26]).

• High Court (Administrative Court): On a case stated from the Ealing Magistrates’ Court, answered the stated question in the negative and held that the banning order could not be limited to particular matches or teams.
• Ealing Magistrates’ Court: Made a three-year football banning order under section 14B of the Football Spectators Act 1989, limited to matches involving Fulham and either Chelsea or Brentford.