European Community

Freedom of movement - football banning order - restriction lawful - ban longer than that permitted when offence committed - no breach of human rightsGough and Another v Chief Constable of Derbyshire; R (Miller) v Leeds Magistrates' Court; Lilley v Director of Public Prosecutions: QBD (Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Poole): 13 July 2001Following applications in the magistrates' court upon complaint by the chief constable that they had caused or contributed to violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere, G and S were made the subject of football banning orders for the minimum period of two years under section 14B(4) of the Football Spectators Act 1989, as inserted.In separate proceedings, orders were imposed upon M and L for the minimum period of six years under section 14A of the 1989 Act following their convictions for public order offences in connection with football.By section 14(4) of the 1989 Act the orders prevented G, S, M and L from entering a specified area for the purpose of attending certain domestic football matches and obliged them to report at a police station to prevent them leaving the country and attending specified football matches abroad.G, S and L appealed by case stated and M applied for judicial review, challenging the lawfulness of the orders.

Rhodri Thompson and Jessica Simor (instructed by Timms, Derby) for Gough and Smith; Philip Havers QC and Simon Davenport (instructed by Weightmans, Leicester) for the Chief Constable of Derbyshire; Alan Newman QC and Timothy Moloney (instructed by Cousins Tyrer, Leeds) for Miller; Philip Havers QC and James Hargan (instructed by the Solicitor, CPS, Leeds) for the Crown Prosecution Service, as an interested party; Alan Newman QC and Scott Wilson (instructed by Lester Morrill, Leeds) for Lilley; Philip Havers QC and Simon Davenport (instructed by the Solicitor, CPS, Leeds) for the Crown Prosecution Service; David Pannick QC and Mark Hoskins for the Secretary of State for the Home Department (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) intervening in all three cases.Held, dismissing the appeals and application, that football banning orders imposed under sections 14A and 14B were a lawful and proportionate restriction on the citizen's freedom of movement under European Community law on grounds of public policy; that orders imposed under section 14A, as those under section 14B, were not a 'penalty' within article 7 of the Human Rights Convention; and that accordingly there was no breach of article 7 when the court imposed a lengthier ban on L and M than that which had been permissible at the time when the relevant offences were committed.

(WLR)