Football Banning Orders & the Back Door

Football Banning Orders (FBO) are serious business. They don't just prevent those convicted of football related offences from attending matches. They include a requirement to report to a police station with your details, including your passport details. You are not allowed to leave the country without permission if there's a match or tournament taking place. Anyone subjected to an FBO who wants to go on holiday during the Euros, for example, will need to ask the police for permission, and if it's not granted, appeal to their local magistrates. Making an FBO therefore has a huge effect on the civil liberties of convicted football supporters.

The purpose behind an FBO is preventative; it's there to stop future disorder, and is therefore subject to a two stage test. Pass both, and you're banned. Firstly, it has to be a specified offence contained within a Schedule in the Football Supporters Act 1989.

If it meets that criteria, then the judge has to be satisfied that the FBO would prevent further disorder.

This may seem wooly, but it gives judges the scope to exercise some common sense, and apply FBOs only where they are applicable (see Boggild v Ors v R [2011] EWCA Crim 1928).

FBOs are not a means of punishing offenders. They will already be punished in their sentences, after all.

However, a judgment by the Court of Appeal in Doyle & Ors v R [2012] EWCA 995, has highlighted an anomaly in the provisions. At the end of the judgment, Hughes LJ pointed out that;

"If non-custodial sentences had been passed, then conditions could have been attached to either community orders or suspended sentences, and the conditions would then no doubt also have served as effective punishment (at paragraph 27)."

Whilst conditions can be attached to an FBO giving specific restrictions, the court must find that the criteria for making an FBO are met before these can be given. If they are not, the offender is sentenced to a custodial sentence, and that is the end of the matter.

However, if the conditions are not met where the offence does not cross the custody threshold, or the judge finds it appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence, the court can impose conditions that have the effect of restricting the civil liberties as part of their punishment, even if the offence does not meet the criteria for an FBO.

This can lead to serious restrictions on the movement of supporters who have been convicted of minor offences that may not be connected with a football match itself, but were committed at or around the time of a game.

How can it be right that those guilty of a minor offence be subjected to Draconian measures just because they are a football fan, when those who commit more serious offences are not subject to such restrictions?

Do other member of society have their civil liberties interfered with as much as football fans? Whilst it is possible to prevent someone who commits an affray, for example, from entering a town centre on a Friday night, it would be interesting to see just how many revellers are subjected to such conditions compared to those who are subject to FBOs or other such restrictions as football fans.