Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership


Club Officials
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JulieH

  1. I will look into it and update when I can
  2. As previously quoted there was no evidence that the disorder was organised
  3. Officer in the case , sorry I do try not to use “police type” quotes !
  4. Sentencing is with the courts and the justice system and has no police involvement .
  5. I alongwith with others were the oic for this case and were present throughout the sentencing last week . 13 defendants pleaded guilty to affray prosecution were able to provide evidence alongside the affray evidence that this was a football related disorder between Bristol rovers fans and a group who they believed to be Bristol city fans. The judge ruled in favour and therefore also issued football banning orders to those he felt was necessary to prevent further disorder at or in connection with a football match. He also issued a lengthy judgement on that decision It’s a very formal reply at this stage as we are obviously still awaiting any appeal from any of the defendants against sentencing . we did not present it as a pre arranged disorder and there was no evidence to suggest that was the case
  6. As previously stated most games at Ashton gate only have 2 Bristol football officers on it along with 2 away team officers. This was the case on Saturday. Each game is looked at by club and police and requests made to police by the club if they feel it is necessary for police resources. is very difficult to find an appropriate place to park large numbers of coaches in the area surrounding the ground, and the trading estate has worked well in my opinion. I will feed back into the rest of the football team for them to monitor the route to the away coaches, particularly around wickes on Saturday v Huddersfield .
  7. Unfortunately on rare occasions groups of football fans have attacked innocent passers by, not very often admittedly but it has happened .
  8. I have replied to the pm
  9. Workedvthere for 5 years, loved every second . I managed it !!!
  10. If you need to use the park and ride at partway this is the best advice , the local route I stated I would suggest is best used by those who know the area
  11. Love shopping, just hate Xmas shopping and the associated queues
  12. Good point! May I suggest junction 17, and through henbury/ Lawrence weston. Big problem with that is no doubt Xmas shoppers will be out in force queuing to come off as well . Worth a try
  13. Yep I can confirm closed all weekend we are advising fans attending from m5 to use junction 19 and come in that way .
  14. As a fan with my family, celebrating a “ special birthday” ( unfortunately for me ) had a very proud moment when the Bristol city flag was hanging from the top tier above my head !!
  15. I was at the game and was really surprised when he got booed. from where I was sat surrounded by fans from London/ Birmingham area it certainly did not come from our part of the ground . Felt really sorry for him first half performance from England was superb, but Montenegro were terrible at the back
  16. To be fair South Wales police have tried , it works easier for policing as well. However I think the issue is that on a previous occasion a pub was seriously damaged by bcfc fans and unfortunately this is still at the forethought of the minds of some of the licensees .
  17. I am told not an option unfortunately. The advice from swp is to drink at stadium . The gates open at 1030hrs. there is no pub that we are able to direct away fans to.
  18. Planning meeting today, some of the city centre pubs are not planning to open so Cardiff police are going around over the next day or two to ascertain who are open for fans. I can update then . No plan at this stage for a pre planned escort to the ground turnstiles and facilities at ground open from 1030 for home and away fans
  19. I understand from Fulham football police allocation is approx 2.000 due to building works at the stadium .
  20. Top man, technology not my greatest asset
  21. When i worked the champions League Final in Cardiff that is exactly what we were briefed. I understood if a match occurs then it gives us a reason to stop and talk to that person to further identify or not. It is only at this point that any direct action is taken. For discussion also, I have identified somene from afar as being subject of a football banning order at a football match, causing police to stop him until i got up close and found it not to be the person! Lots of apologies and the person luckily was quite amused . It happens without the use of technology as well
  22. Right as promised I have enclosed the legislation in relation to Racilist chanting at football matches, some definition of what is Racist and also some stated cases. Won`t attatch as a word document so cut and paste it is: Also might need glasses!!! Racialist chanting at football matches - Section 3 Football Offences Act 1991 (as amended) This offence is committed when a group of people, or one person acting alone, chants something of a racialist nature at a designated football match. "Racialist" means the same as "racist". To prove this offence, the prosecution has to show that the chanting, which means the repeated uttering of words or sounds, was threatening, abusive or insulting to another person because of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin. It is not necessary to prove that the chanting was directed at a particular individual or group, although it will often be directed at a player or players from Black and minority ethnic communities. If convicted, the accused person can be fined (level 3), and, in addition to any other penalty, banned from attending football matches both in this country and abroad. Racist and religious crime - the legislation Parliament has passed specific legislation aimed at outlawing crime where the offender is motivated by hostility or hatred towards the victim's race or religious beliefs (actual or perceived). A table setting out some of the more commonly used legislation is at Annex A. For conduct not covered by the specific offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, it may be appropriate to remind the court of its duty to treat evidence of racial or religious hostility as an aggravating factor increasing sentence as provided by section 145 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It is important that prosecutors are aware of the full range of available offences when deciding on the most appropriate charge to prosecute in a particular case. Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended) This Act created a number of specific offences of racially aggravated crime, based on offences of wounding, assault, damage, harassment and threatening/abusive behaviour. The Act defines "racial group" as a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. An amendment (December 2001) extended the scope of the Act by creating new specific religiously aggravated offences. The Act defines "religious group" as a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. S145 Criminal Justice Act 2003 S145 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 imposes a duty upon courts to increase the sentence for any offence committed that involves either: the offender demonstrating towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group; or the offence being motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group. Note that these are alternatives. This means that in a case where a demonstration of hostility can be proved, there is no need also to prove motivation, and vice versa. CPS application of s145 A sentence may be increased under s145 in relation to any offence. Much of the harassment experienced by racial or religious communities is persistent, low level offending. In order to counter this type of behaviour it is important that s145 uplifts are applied for in all appropriate cases. This approach is intended to ensure that racially and religiously aggravated hate crime is punished properly and that justice is afforded to all. Definition of a "racial group" The Act says a "racial group" means a "group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins." The definition is wide and victims may come within the definition under more than one of the references. Gypsies and some travellers, refugees or asylum seekers or others from less visible minorities would be included within this definition. While Romany gypsies have long been recognised as an ethnic racial group (Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton [1989] QB 783), in more recent times and certainly since the first instance discrimination case of O'Leary v Punch Retail (HHJ Goldstein, Westminster County Court, 29 August 2000), Irish Travellers have also been considered an ethnic racial group. Whilst this has not been considered by an appellate criminal court, the O'Leary case is regarded as being persuasive if the point is ever taken. Whilst there has been no case law around Roma in the UK, the European Court of Human Rights recognises that the community forms a distinct ethnic group and prosecutors are recommended to apply the definition provided by the legislation to argue for inclusion. Various cases in the past have considered what constitutes membership of a racial group. Some decisions have concluded that persons associated by their religious beliefs may also be part of a racial group. Prosecutors should consider on the facts of each case if the aggravating feature arises from hostility towards a religious belief or a racial group (or a combination of both). There has been a legal ruling that Sikhs can be included in the definition of a racial group (Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1983] 2 AC 548). In the Mandla case, reference is made to the judgment in King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531 as being a persuasive authority for Jews being included in the definition of a racial group as well as a religious group. Although not criminal cases, further support for this proposition can be found in the cases of R v JFS [2009] UKSC 15 which related to the legality of the admission policy of a Jewish secondary school and Seide v Gillette Industries Ltd [1980] IRLR 427 in which an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that anti-Semitic comments made by a fellow-worker were made because he was a member of the Jewish race, not because of his religion. Definition of a "religious group" The Act defines a religious group as, "a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief." This includes Muslims, Hindus and Christians, and different sects within a religion. It also includes people who do not hold any religious beliefs at all. Sectarian hostility is covered by this definition and hostility towards converts and apostates. Hostility Hostility is not defined in the legislation. Consideration should be given to ordinary dictionary definitions, which include ill-will, ill-feeling, spite, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment, and dislike. Demonstrating hostility The words of the subsection require an indication by the offender of hostility towards the victim based on race or religion. The demonstration of hostility must be nearly contemporaneous to the conduct element of the offence (at the time of the offence or immediately before or after). The demonstration of hostility is likely, in many cases, to be something different from and additional to the conduct element of the offence. Mere evidence of the commission of the substantive offence against a victim is not sufficient. Motivated by hostility The second limb of section 145 is concerned with the offender's motivation, requiring proof that the substantive offence was wholly or partly motivated by hostility towards persons who are of a particular race or religion. Motive can be established by evidence relating to what the defendant may have said or done on other occasions or prior to the current incident. In some cases, background evidence could well be important if relevant to establish motive, for example, evidence of membership of, or association with, a racist group, or evidence of expressed racist views in the past might, depending on the facts, be admissible in evidence. With reference to interpretation, it should be noted that section 28(1)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which refers to racial hostility, has been held to be wide enough to include hostility towards one member of such a group, since section 6(c) of the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that "words in the plural include the singular" unless the contrary intention appears, and no such contrary intention appears in the provision. In addition, the circumstances include those where an offence is motivated by hostility towards a third party, based on the relevant characteristic, who is not present: see Taylor v DPP [2006] EWHC 1202 (Admin). Accordingly, an offence committed against one person (or many persons) but motivated by hostility towards another person or persons on the basis of their perceived disability would seem to satisfy the statutory test. Case law The following cases illustrate the approach that the courts have adopted when interpreting the law: Evidence of words (spoken or written) or actions that show hostility towards the victim will be required. "Demonstrations" of hostility often involve swear words, for example: "black bastard" (R v Woods [2002] EWHC 85) or "African bitch" (R v White [2001] EWCA Crim 216). In RG & LT v DPP [2004] EWHC 183 May LJ said "It may be possible to demonstrate racial hostility by, for instance, holding up a banner with racially offensive language on it". In R v Rogers (2007) 2 W.L.R. 280, the defendant was involved in an altercation with three Spanish women during the course of which he called them "bloody foreigners" and told them to "go back to your own country". The House of Lords, in upholding the defendant's conviction, held that the definition of a racial group clearly went beyond groups defined by their colour, race, or ethnic origin. It encompassed both nationality (including citizenship) and national origins. The statute intended a broad non-technical approach. Furthermore the victim might be presumed by the offender to be a member of a particular group, even if that was not correct. The House of Lords added that the fact that the offender's hostility was based on other factors in addition to racist hostility or xenophobia was irrelevant. The court also observed that the necessary hostility could be demonstrated by the wearing of swastikas or the singing of certain songs. The demonstration of hostility need not be based on any malevolence towards the group in question. Disposition at the time is irrelevant: see DPP v Green [2004] EWHC 1225 (Admin.) and R v Woods, in which it was irrelevant that the offender, who used racially abusive language to a doorman after being refused admission, might well have abused anyone standing in the victim's place by reference to any obvious physical characteristic. The victim's reaction to the hostility is not relevant. See R v Woods, in which the victim was called a "black bastard" but said in evidence that he was "not bothered" by such comments. The Administrative Court found that the use of racist abuse during the commission of the basic offence made out the test for racial aggravation However, in RG and LT v DPP May LJ said that, "an offender may demonstrate racial hostility by joining in the activities of a group of people where a sufficient number of members of the group are themselves demonstrating racial hostility, and where the defendant's adherence to the group is such as to go beyond mere presence within the group, but so as to associate himself or herself with the demonstration of racial hostility which the group as a whole is displaying".
  23. the police had no involvement with the group and their attendance or leafleting . only 2 football officers were on duty for that game and it would be fair to say we were busy elsewhere , mainly dealing with parking issues and blocked junctions
  24. I am so sorry but it has been really busy work wise as I have had to deal with met police enquiries re haringay v Yeovil and also have had a court case to be present at. i am aware of the urgency and I am hoping ASAP to dig out the legislation and will post it here
  25. The event was captured on cctv 3 males were ejected with no offences / complaints reported by either party
  • Create New...