Leading officers demand ‘root-and-branch review’ into how football is policed to stop ‘criminalising’ of fans

A “root-and-branch review” of the UK Football Policing Unit is a matter of urgency in order to stop the approach of seeing “fans as a threat and a problem to be solved” according to high-ranking current and former officers.

The Independent exclusively revealed the UKFPU are blocking a review into the law that prevents supporters from drinking alcohol “in view of the pitch,” which was introduced in 1985 and deemed “outdated and based on prejudice” by the Football Supporters’ Association. 

In a document seen by The Independent outlining UKFPU’s concerns to any changes regarding the Control of Alcohol Act - which multiple sources revealed was not linked to any evidence - the body also painted safe standing in a negative light.

There is growing dismay from several forces at the blocking of any suggestions to reform football policing.

Owen West, a former Chief Superintendent and head of specialist operations and an expert in crowd management and behaviour at games, tells The Independent: “From ENABLE to safe standing, neutral venues and now the alcohol review, the UKFPU always see threat where others see opportunity and innovation.

“They fiercely resist any challenge or questioning of their view, have zero accountability, a monopoly of power and they guard it well. There must be a root-and-branch review of the UKFPU.”

West, who is part of ENABLE - a project that brings together leading academics, police forces, clubs and supporters to work on progressive methods for safety and security at matches, which is backed by the English Football League - is not alone in his view.

Arfon Jones, the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Wales and part-owner of Wrexham, tells The Independent: “Football fans are automatically tarred with being hooligans and the UKFPU are still trying to police the 1980s in 2020.

“When you work at horse racing or cricket or a concert, those are seen as policing an event. Football is seen as policing a public disorder incident.

“We need a full parliamentary investigation into how UKFPU are run, but the problem is there are not too many MPs who are interested in football.

“If it was people attending cricket or rugby union that was treated in this regard, at an exorbitant cost with banning orders and the like, this would have been sorted years ago.”

Geoff Pearson, an expert in how football crowds are managed and senior lecturer in law at Manchester University, highlights the fundamental problem with the difference in how the sport is treated as opposed to other mass gatherings.

“Football policing is not grounded in human rights,” he tells The Independent. “If you look at protest policing, there was a document about adapting to protests and it stated the starting point for police, even if it could be disorderly, is to have human rights as the focus of their thinking.

“Football fans have the same right to assemble and freedom of expression and they have done so for around the last 10 years. But this has not been recognised, it’s not in any of the guidance for those policing football.

“While some forces have been proactive and progressive in this regard, there are very much in the minority. It means the approach to policing football is still largely based around preventing disorder.

“If football was policed from a human rights approach, then you’d have a very different emphasis. The majority forces that do not follow this route would need to change and adapt, which would be beneficial for their relationship with fans, enhance trust, and reduce the likelihood of disorder occurring.”

One of the major issues concerning how the game is policed are football banning orders. Under Section 14A of the Football Spectators Act 1989, an FBO can be applied for whenever a person is convicted of a relevant football-related offence.

More controversially, Section 14B allows applications of FBOs on complaint, where there has been no conviction. Detailed research has flagged cases drawn up on flimsy evidence of little more than guilt by association. Other cases had such strong evidence, which raised questions as to why criminal prosecutions had not been brought.

Several studies have also reported high costs that were awarded to the police for unsuccessfully contested applications, which raised concern to to whether this could be incentivising both kinds of FBO applications.

A 2014 report by criminology expert Dr Matt Hopkins argued a number of forces used 14B FBOs in order to fund football policing units, which was supported by the findings of fellow esteemed academic Richard Hester this year.

West calls it a “pernicious power that, when combined with a target culture, can criminalise fans and is a real threat to police legitimacy and public confidence. Forces being paid for banning orders must be stopped.”

Pearson has noted that “the unclear drafting of Section 14 has received considerable criticism and attempts at clarification from the Court of Appeal.

“The problem here is that despite FBOs having been in place in various forms for over three decades, there has yet to be any research into their effectiveness in terms of reducing football-related violence or disorder domestically or abroad.”

Amanda Jacks, caseworker for the FSA, echoes these sentiments. “While football policing is in a much better place compared to five years ago, the countrywide picture isn't yet consistent and we still see some supporters policed on historic reputation as opposite to actual behaviour,” she tells The Independent.

“A handful of forces run admirable initiatives to divert younger individuals whose behaviour is problematic away from the criminal justice system, but elsewhere we see supporters charged under outdated legislation and FBOs applied for on a 'pot luck' basis rather than because they're genuinely required.

“Not only is there no evidence that FBOs have an impact on reducing disorder, they were introduced as a mechanism to prevent disorder yet we all too frequently see them applied for and used as a punishment for any football-related offence.

“At best, this is a cynical misuse of legislation.  We also see arguments put forward against progressive initiatives such as safe standing that are prejudice-based rather than evidence-based.

“It is 2020 and the localised progression we've seen across all aspects of football policing should be countrywide.

“The time is ripe for a complete review of football-related legislation, physical policing and how the criminal justice system treats football supporters.”

Pearson feels the problems start with the statutes itself, which need to be reworked.

“A lot of the law that regulates football crowds is just bad law,” he says. “It is rushed law, panicked law, it is law that has no evidence to prove whether it works or not. It is law that was opposed by a lot of the police working matches when it was brought in at the time.

“For example, the police didn’t support The Control of Alcohol Act because they thought it would cause problems like people drinking more in advance of the match, turning up later at turnstiles causing congestion and all those fears have been demonstrated by research on a weekly basis.

“The alcohol misuse, particularly by some away fans due to this legislation, leads to problems. The laws about not being able to drink on football specials and not being able to drink in sight of the pitch need to be repealed because they are counter-productive.

"We can say the same about blocking safe standing at football matches. The interim report from the Sports Grounds Safety Authority said it 'has had a positive impact on spectator safety, particularly in mitigating the risk of crowd collapse.’ This is the evidence we should be working with.”

The UKFPU have been approached by The Independent for comment.