After the Act?   The (re)construction and regulation of football fandom

Football & CJA: > About the campaign > Summary > After the act > New Statesman > Ticket touts > Ticket to hide > law/campaign links < football home Related links: > bust card > Footie fans' rights > your rights on arrest > your rights under CJA > Section 27 > Section 60 > Legal homepage

abstract - introduction - Govt and regulation - Criminal Justice Act - Other CJA provisions - Conclusion Other CJA provisions with ramifications for civil liberties of football fans The other provisions of the CJA which may prove most relevant are those relating to stop and search, trespassory assemblies and intentional harassment. Football fans have long been subject to being searched at football matches, often as a condition of entry. The CJA 1994 s60 now provides that: (1) Where a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent reasonably believes that (a) incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his area, and (b) it is expedient to do so to prevent their occurrence, he may give an authorisation that the powers to stop and search persons and vehicles and.... shall be exercisable at any place within that locality for a period not exceeding twenty four hours. Even before the section came into force there was evidence that fans were being arbitrarily stopped and held preventing them from attending at football games. The new section further creates the risk that the powers will be used disproportionately towards certain groups and FFACJA argue that football supporters will be one of these groups. FFACJA cite, for example, the case of Cardiff City fans travelling by coach to a game with Plymouth Argyle, who were stopped by a road block on the way to the game, strip searched and taken to three separate police stations and held for seven hours (thus missing the game) before being released without charge. This incident in fact happened before the new s60 powers came into force, FFACJA feeling that; Police already tend to pick on fans unnecessarily and this will give them more powers to harass us...no-one likes being stopped and searched and my fear is that people will react badly, even violently (45) Similarly 150 Manchester United fans were detained by the Metropolitan Police for two hours before the match with West Ham last season. The police in riot gear took photographs and names and addresses before releasing the fans. A similar response can be seen in the provisions relating to aggravated trespass and trespassory assembly contained within sections 68 to 71. These sections were designed to deal with 'deviant' groups such as hunt saboteurs. There has however been much discontent at the provisions as they are broad enough to embrace situations not intended by the Government. For example , under CJA s68 aggravated trespass is committed if a person: ...trespasses on land in the open air and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land in the open air, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect- (a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity, (b) of obstructing that activity, or (c) of disrupting that activity. This in theory could easily catch peaceful demonstrations at football grounds that have been used in the past to protest about the Board of Directors or about the implementation of a bond scheme. As Lord Beaumont put it: [The clauses] are drafted so broadly that they could be used against anybody holding a peaceful protest on private land. As a result, ordinary people exercising their legitimate and historic right to peaceful protest may now be taken into police custody under arrest and will have to appear before the courts...Peaceful protest is often one of the only ways in which the minority can voice their objections to the activities of the majority, or the weak can protest against the powerful.(46) An excellent example of how this might effect peaceful protest is presented by the Stop The Seventy Tour Campaign organised by Peter Hain which set out to prevent the 1970 South Africa cricket tour to England in protest at the apartheid regime in South Africa.(47) The protest took many forms and focused upon the Springboks rugby tour in 1969 to show the authorities the conditions under which the 1970 cricket tour would be played. Tactics including running onto the pitches during play, sitting down and distracting players. Even though the cricket authorities were adamant that the tour should go ahead the tour was eventually called off after exhortations by the Home Secretary James Callaghan fearing months of social disorder (before a General Election!) if the tour were to go ahead. Peter Hain was at the time unsuccessful prosecuted for his part in the demonstrations and campaign. However as Lord Avebury, who had appeared as a defence witness for Peter Hain in his trial, noted during the House of Lords debate on the Bill; If the Bill had applied at the time of the Stop the '70 Tour Peter Hain would have been liable to three months imprisonment. I do not see that we want to extend the scope of imprisonment in this way.(48) Finally CJA s154 creates a new s4A in the Public Order Act 1986. It will be recalled that this section was considered insufficient by Lord Justice Taylor and with regard to football and is now also supplemented by FOA 1991 s3. Originally intended as a further tool to combat racial harassment, the issue of race is surprisingly not included within the statutory provision: There is a risk that in one respect [this section] may be inappropriately wide. It covers any kind of threatening or disorderly behaviour or abusive or threatening written words; and it could be a one-off incident because the new clause does not specify that the behaviour has to be repeated (49) Part of the ritual pleasure of being a football fan is to be able to admonish criticise shout and taunt your own team and the opposition for the period of the match. The problem encountered by the vagueness of this section is that it does not discriminate between the use of abusive or racist language (as is already catered for under FOA 1991) and 'mere hyperbole' and comments/actions that may alarm or distress to other parties. Footnotes: 45. Mike Slocombe of FFACJA quoted in Brown M 'Marching Orders' When Saturday Comes Oct 1994 46. Hansard (HL) 24 May 1994 Col 698. 47. Apartheid and cricket had reared its ugly head before and after this; see Greenfield & Osborn (1996) 'Culture, Change, Commodity and Crisis: Cricket's Timeless Test' International Journal of the Sociology of Law Special Issue on Law and Popular Culture, forthcoming. 48. Hansard (HL) 24 May 1994 Col 714. 49. Hansard (HL) 16 June 1994 Col 1866, per Lord Irvine of Lairg. Next page: After the Act - conclusions

urban75 - community - action - mag - photos - tech - music - drugs - punch - football - offline club - brixton - london - new york - useless - boards - help/FAQs - © - design - contact - sitemap - search