Banning order for entering the field of play 'disproportionate'

[Egg]

This is an interesting one.... a City fan runs onto the pitch during the Argyle game, but escapes a banning order because the magistrates decide it would be 'disproportionate':

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Overexcited-Exeter-City-fan-ran-pitch-Plymouth/story-29404193-detail/story.html

Clearly, I'm no legal expert, but thought that if you were found guilty of entering the field of play then a banning order was the inevitable outcome. Indeed, the CPS guidance on football-related offences appears to confirm this:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/football_related_offences/#a02

Seems to me that the magistrates have disregarded the law and Matthew Penfold is a very, very lucky boy!

 

[Spoonz Red E]

Clearly, I'm no legal expert, but thought that if you were found guilty of entering the field of play then a banning order was the inevitable outcome. Indeed, the CPS guidance on football-related offences appears to confirm this:

Seems to me that the magistrates have disregarded the law and Matthew Penfold is a very, very lucky boy!

According to this part of the link you've given the magistrate did have the leeway not to give a banning order.

"It must be borne in mind that deterrence is only a factor to be borne in mind in determining the application; it is not the decisive factor, so that an order will not inevitably follow from a conviction for a football related offence (R v Boggild and Others [2011] EWCA Crim 1928)."

 

[Egg]

According to this part of the link you've given the magistrate did have the leeway not to give a banning order.

"It must be borne in mind that deterrence is only a factor to be borne in mind in determining the application; it is not the decisive factor, so that an order will not inevitably follow from a conviction for a football related offence (R v Boggild and Others [2011] EWCA Crim 1928)."

But R v Boggild and Others [2011] didn't relate to a conviction for entering the field of play, as was the case here. Rather, Boggild and six others were convicted of affray, outside of the confines of the stadium, in the aftermath of a game:

http://tinyurl.com/heydvqt

The circumstances were such that the judge ruled this had been a relatively minor skirmish, the defendants had learnt their lesson, were unlikely to offend again and, thus, nothing was to be gained from a banning order.

However, my understanding is that where someone is convicted for entering the field of play there is a presumption that failure to punish this with a banning order could encourage similar behaviour from others in the future – this being the case, it satisfies the requirement that a banning order should be imposed if it will discourage violence or disorder by others [or a repetition of the violence / disorder by those in front of the court].

As I said, I'm no legal expert but, unless I'm reading this entirely wrong – and I'd be interested to hear the views of those better versed in the law than me – the defendant in this case has got lucky!

 

[andrew p long]

my (quick) reading is that the magistrates have not got it wrong,but that the defendant is indeed fortunate to escape a football ban

The relevant section appears to be structured along the lines 'MUST ban' ....'IF'. The If (will reduce disorder etc) is presumed.

But it is only a presumption, and one which can be rebutted.

Having said that running on to the pitch after an injury time winner in a local derby....? What would have happened if some over-excited Argyle fans had come on to the pitch at the same time?

 

[Mr Jan Yeo]

Haven't read it all in detail, but did notice this line in S14A:

Where a person is convicted of a "relevant offence", the court must make a Football Banning Order in addition to any sentence for the offence, if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it would help to prevent violence or disorder (for further information, see below) at or in connection with any regulated football matches (s.14A(1)). If the court is not so satisfied, it must state its reasons in open court (s.14A(2)).

 

[Grecian68]

But R v Boggild and Others [2011] didn't relate to a conviction for entering the field of play, as was the case here. Rather, Boggild and six others were convicted of affray, outside of the confines of the stadium, in the aftermath of a game:

http://tinyurl.com/heydvqt

The circumstances were such that the judge ruled this had been a relatively minor skirmish, the defendants had learnt their lesson, were unlikely to offend again and, thus, nothing was to be gained from a banning order.

However, my understanding is that where someone is convicted for entering the field of play there is a presumption that failure to punish this with a banning order could encourage similar behaviour from others in the future – this being the case, it satisfies the requirement that a banning order should be imposed if it will discourage violence or disorder by others [or a repetition of the violence / disorder by those in front of the court].

As I said, I'm no legal expert but, unless I'm reading this entirely wrong – and I'd be interested to hear the views of those better versed in the law than me – the defendant in this case has got lucky!

Open season now for those that want to get onto the pitch, all you have to is to say "I got a bit excited"!

 

[Spoonz Red E]

But R v Boggild and Others [2011] didn't relate to a conviction for entering the field of play, as was the case here. Rather, Boggild and six others were convicted of affray, outside of the confines of the stadium, in the aftermath of a game:

But the caveat referred to as regards this case does not make the distinction of the accused being inside or out of the ground it simply says "will not inevitably follow from a conviction for a football related offence"

Agreed the bloke was lucky to get off without a banning order though - maybe the magistrate enjoyed Ollie's winner too...

 

[Grecian2K]

Anyone else remember that wonderful day, the 2nd May 2009, up in darkest Sheffield.

When, despite stern warnings to the contrary,numbers of Rotherham supporters swarmed on to the pitch.

And, despite initial obedience, they were followed by HOARDES of jubilant Grecians on to the turf.

Seem to recall lots of handshakes...but NO handcuffs.

Guess it's all about context?

 

[iscalad]

Anyone else remember that wonderful day, the 2nd May 2009, up in darkest Sheffield.

When, despite stern warnings to the contrary,numbers of Rotherham supporters swarmed on to the pitch.

And, despite initial obedience, they were followed by HOARDES of jubilant Grecians on to the turf.

Seem to recall lots of handshakes...but NO handcuffs.

Guess it's all about context?

Indeed, even I stepped on a blade of grass that day!

 

[fred binneys head]

Anyone else remember that wonderful day, the 2nd May 2009, up in darkest Sheffield.

When, despite stern warnings to the contrary,numbers of Rotherham supporters swarmed on to the pitch.

And, despite initial obedience, they were followed by HOARDES of jubilant Grecians on to the turf.

Seem to recall lots of handshakes...but NO handcuffs.

Guess it's all about context?

Blimey, I was there that day and was on the pitch but I don't remember any Rotherham fans on the pitch??