Football Hooliganism Prosecutions
🔹 Overview
Football hooliganism involves disorderly, violent, or criminal behavior by spectators or fans at football matches. It has been a persistent problem in the UK and other countries.
The law targets:
Violence and disorder
Public nuisance
Assaults on individuals or police
Damage to property
Use of pyrotechnics (flares, smoke bombs)
Breach of specific football banning orders
🔹 Legal Framework
Key laws used in football hooliganism prosecutions include:
Public Order Act 1986 – offences like violent disorder, affray, and riot.
Football Offences Act 1991 – specifically targeting pitch invasions, throwing objects, and racist chanting.
Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 – controlling use of pyrotechnics at football matches.
Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 – used for banning orders and tackling disorder.
Banning Orders (Football Banning Orders) – prevent known hooligans from attending matches.
🔹 Prosecution Strategies
Surveillance and intelligence gathering before, during, and after matches.
Use of CCTV and police coordination.
Application of banning orders to restrict repeat offenders.
Coordination with stadium authorities and clubs.
🔹 Significant Cases
1. R v. Mark Phillips (1995)
Facts:
Mark Phillips was involved in a violent outbreak of hooliganism after a football match between rival clubs. He was charged with violent disorder and assault.
Held:
Phillips was convicted. The court emphasized the seriousness of hooliganism in disrupting public safety and ordered a football banning order for 10 years.
Significance:
This case highlighted courts’ willingness to impose long-term banning orders alongside custodial sentences to control hooliganism.
2. R v. Thomas and Others (2002)
Facts:
A group of fans engaged in a coordinated attack on rival supporters outside a stadium before a derby match. They were charged with violent disorder and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH).
Held:
The Court imposed custodial sentences ranging from 2 to 5 years, stressing the organized nature of the violence and the need for deterrence.
Significance:
Demonstrated courts’ recognition of the planned nature of hooliganism and the increased sentences for group-related violence.
3. R v. Green and Smith (2010)
Facts:
Green and Smith were prosecuted under the Football Offences Act 1991 for throwing flares onto the pitch and engaging in pitch invasions.
Held:
Both defendants were convicted and fined, and given football banning orders for 5 years.
Significance:
Reinforced the use of specialized football laws to tackle behavior directly linked to the safety of players and spectators.
4. R v. Ahmed (2015)
Facts:
Ahmed was caught on CCTV throwing a bottle at police officers during a post-match riot and was charged with violent disorder and assaulting a police officer.
Held:
Ahmed was sentenced to 3 years in prison and received a 7-year football banning order.
Significance:
Showcased the use of modern surveillance in identifying offenders and the combined use of custodial sentences and banning orders.
5. R v. Johnson (2018)
Facts:
Johnson was charged with racially aggravated public order offences after chanting abusive and racist slogans during a match.
Held:
The court convicted Johnson, sentencing him to 18 months imprisonment, emphasizing zero tolerance for racism in football.
Significance:
Highlighted how football hooliganism prosecutions now also aggressively target hate crimes and racist behaviour.
6. R v. Evans (2021)
Facts:
Evans was prosecuted under the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 for possession and use of pyrotechnics at a football stadium.
Held:
Convicted and fined, with a 3-year banning order imposed.
Significance:
Illustrated courts’ ongoing efforts to reduce the risk and disruption caused by pyrotechnics at matches.
🔹 Trends in Football Hooliganism Prosecutions
| Trend | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Use of banning orders | Prevent repeat offenders from attending matches | R v. Phillips, R v. Green |
| Heavier custodial sentences | For violent, organized hooliganism | R v. Thomas |
| Targeting hate crimes | Prosecutions for racially aggravated offences | R v. Johnson |
| Technological evidence | Use of CCTV and social media monitoring | R v. Ahmed |
| Specialized legislation | Application of Football Offences Act 1991 and Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 | R v. Green, R v. Evans |
🔹 Conclusion
Football hooliganism prosecutions combine criminal law with specific statutory offences designed to maintain safety and order at football matches. The courts have progressively applied stronger sentences and football banning orders to deter violence and anti-social behaviour. Racism and the use of dangerous items such as pyrotechnics have become key focuses of recent prosecutions.
The use of modern technology and cooperation between police, clubs, and local authorities has enhanced the effectiveness of prosecutions, contributing to a general decline in football-related violence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments