Ipswich Town Football Club Company Ltd v The Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary

Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 separates policing performed in discharge of the ordinary public duty from special police services supplied at a person’s request. The police cannot charge for maintaining law and order on the public highway merely because a profitable event creates the need for additional officers. In football cases, the public or private character of the land is the central indicator. Planned preventative policing on public land will usually remain part of the ordinary duty. Delegated or de facto control, proximity to a stadium, commercial benefit, crowd-management arrangements, or pressure on police resources do not by themselves make the services special. Private-land policing will usually be chargeable, subject to actual or imminent violence. Any wider policy change is for Parliament.

Ipswich Town Football Club challenged charges imposed by the Chief Constable for special police services provided on public highways immediately outside the club’s stadium, within a traffic control order area. The Club accepted that charges could be made for policing inside the stadium, but disputed liability for services in the external area.

Green J held that the charges were recoverable for services within the traffic control order area, but not for services beyond it, and gave directions on quantum and recovery. The Club appealed from that decision, seeking a declaration that the Chief Constable could not charge for policing within the area. The central issue was whether the services were ordinary public-duty policing or special police services under section 25 of the Police Act 1996.

The appeal was allowed and the Club’s declaration was granted. Gloster LJ delivered the leading judgment, with which Gross LJ and Briggs LJ agreed.

1. Section 25 of the Police Act 1996 preserves the distinction identified in Glasbrook Bros Ltd v Glamorgan County Council [1925] AC 270. The police cannot charge for services required to discharge their ordinary duty to keep the peace, prevent crime, or protect life and property. They may charge for other services provided at a person’s request.
2. The classification is fact-sensitive, but in football cases the most important indicator is whether the police are required to attend on private premises or public land. Policing on public land will usually be part of the ordinary duty, including planned preventative policing to prevent or control possible disorder. Private-land policing will usually constitute special police services, subject to the qualification that actual or imminent violence may bring it within the ordinary duty. The benefit to the requesting club, resource pressures, the nature of the event, and the absence of a simple but-for test are relevant only to the limited extent identified in Leeds United Football Club Limited v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2013] EWCA Civ 115.
3. The traffic control order did not convert the public highways into private land. The Club’s activities were undertaken under authority or delegation from the Council or the police. Its stewarding, crowd management, commercial use, proximity to the stadium, and any de facto control did not give it responsibility for public order or rebut the ordinary public-duty analysis. The non-binding contractual documents could not alter the legal character of the highways.
4. The disputed area was materially indistinguishable from the extended footprint in Leeds. The judge’s conclusion was a question of law, not an exercise of an unchallengeable discretion or a mere perversity challenge. Certainty and predictability favoured applying the public/private boundary. Any change requiring clubs to pay for policing on public highways was a matter for Parliament.

Gross LJ emphasised certainty and the constitutional distinction between judicial determination and legislative policy. Briggs LJ agreed, while noting that even if the Club had significant de facto control, that would not distinguish the case from Leeds.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the Club’s appeal and granted a declaration that the Chief Constable was not entitled to charge for the disputed policing services.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Green J held that charges were recoverable for policing within the traffic control order area, but not for areas beyond it, in [2016] EWHC 1682 (QB).