In the Matter of. The Football Association -v- RED RUM FC, Liverpool County Football Association

Transcription

1 In the Matter of The Football Association -v- RED RUM FC, Liverpool County Football Association Reasons for Discipline Commission Decision 23 rd April 2014 Case History 1. In the course of a game on 4th January 2014 between Red Rum FC and Kingsley United FC there was an incident involving a supporter on the Red Rum FC touchline in the course of the game which caused the referee and his assistant to submit a report to the County Football Association which, quite properly, reported the matter to the Football Association at Wembley. After due enquiry, disciplinary proceedings were raised against the club, Red Rum FC, alleging a breach or Rule E20 of the FA Regulations namely that the Club failed to ensure that players and/or officials and/or spectators conducted them in an orderly fashion and that such conduct was aggravated by the use of racist language and/or behaviour. 2. The club pled not guilty and, a hearing was fixed for 6pm on 23 rd April 2014 at the premises of Liverpool County Football Association. 3. The parties to the hearing were as follows:- Ian Hussin, Football Services Officer Liverpool County Football Association who acted as Secretary to the Commission and the Commission Members were Robert B. Anthony QC (Chairman); David Pinder and Brad Pomfret all of whom were in personal attendance.

2 The charges and facts relating thereto. 4. The club was given fair notice of the alleged breach and facts relating thereto in the reports from the referee and the assistant referee. We do not intend to detail the said reports as we might have done in other determinations for the reasons which we shall explain below. However, in summary, these officials reported how at half time, the assistant referee brought to the attention of the referee the fact that there had been a racist comment made by a spectator during the first half. The referee had not heard it but indicated that he would pay attention. Thereafter in the second half at approximately the 54 th minute after a foul tackle, a Kingsley United player was being booked. Numerous players ran over to the area where the foul had been committed and the assistant referee ran on to assist the referee. As he ran on, he could hear a spectator shouting Dirty Fucking Niggers from the Red Rum FC touchline. When the assistant referee returned, he challenged the behaviour of the spectator who had also been confronted by the Red Rum FC supporters and substitutes. There was no further incident during the match. The evidence & Findings of Fact. 5. Normally in a determination, we would narrate a summary of the evidence presented. However, in this case as we did not find the charge to have been established, we do not consider that to be necessary nor is it necessary to make Findings of Fact. Where a charge is not established a brief note to record the commission s reasons is sufficient. 6. In this case we heard evidence in person from the referee, Mr. Daniel Issawi, from the Assistant referee, Mr. Makin by way of loudspeaker telephone conference and in person from Mr. Earl Jenkins, the manager of Kingsley United FC. Those witnesses were led by the County FA. We then heard evidence from Mr. Michael Murphy who was the club official representing Red Rum FC. 7. It would be fair to say that, on the whole, the evidence led was exculpatory and

3 supportive of Red Rum FC. After his report was read, the referee Mr. Issawi was asked if there was anything which he wanted to add to his report. He only wished to state that this he has never experienced nor heard of such conduct on the part of Red Rum FC previously and the club has never caused him any difficulty during games. The Assistant referee was equally supportive of the club but also stated that the comments which he heard during the first half would not have been said loudly enough for Red Rum FC officials attending the game to have heard and therefore to have taken any action. Furthermore, at half time, although he may have mentioned the comment to the referee, he did not mention it to any official from Red Rum in order that they were aware of the conduct and take appropriate action. Mr. Makin also confirmed that following the incident in the second half which was loud enough for Red Rum FC officials to hear, team substitutes and officials dealt with the perpetrator immediately by confronting him and taking steps necessary to ensure that there was no further incident. Mr. Earl Jenkins differed slightly from the Assistant referee in that he thought the loud abuse occurred during the first half and not the second. However, on this point he conceded it was some time ago and given the evidence from the Assistant referee, we preferred the latter, believing Mr. Jenkins to be mistaken about this one point. However, Mr. Jenkins volunteered evidence that he had never previously heard any such racist comments from Red Rum FC supporters in the past. He considered this to be an isolated incident and he was not at the commission to see Red Rum FC vilified. However, his players were so frustrated that he felt something should have been done. Mr. Murphy stated on behalf of Red Rum FC that they were appalled by the conduct. They had no cause to believe such an incident would have occurred. There has been no previous report of such conduct. As soon as they became aware of it during the second half, club officials dealt with it and it was a public area to which anyone could walk. There was a gate which did not then lock. As a consequence of this incident, the officials have now taken steps to ensure that those from whom they rented the ground have secured the ground with a lockable gate and have provided a key. The club supporters and opposition support now enter the area of the pitch and the gate is then locked. Members of the public can no longer stray onto the touchline. The evidence led showed that the person on the touchline who shouted the abuse was a young specta-

4 tor who was not one of the regular supporters but had simply wandered over to watch the game. We have not referred to all of the evidence in detail. Our Decision. 8. The issue for our determination was very straightforward. There was no dispute that during the second half, one young spectator shouted out loudly enough for match and team officials to hear the abusive comments. In terms of Rule E20, the club would be strictly liable for the conduct unless it could satisfy the commission that the defence provided in Rule E22 namely that the incident or occurrence complained of was the result of circumstances over which the club had no control or that they used all due diligence to ensure that its responsibility was discharged. Accordingly, we had to determine whether such a defence was satisfied on the basis of the evidence which we heard. This point was solely for our determination. 9. In considering whether such a defence is made out, each case has to be considered on its own facts and circumstances. There are no hard and fast rules. Whilst we are not advocating any different standard of proof, when considering this defence there are different considerations to be taken into account in the case of a club which rents an open, non enclosed pitch as opposed to an established club which has an enclosed ground with turnstiles. In this case we considered it important that all parties were supportive of Red Rum FC in that there had never previously been such an allegation. Accordingly, there was no continuing prior and continuing problem which required to be policed or monitored and they had no previous indication to alert the club to the fact that the individual concerned would conduct himself in such a manner. During the first half, comments made by the spectator which were heard by the assistant referee were not loud enough for the Red Rum FC club officials to hear and, therefore, appreciate there was a problem which they required to address. No club official or opposition team official alerted Red Rum FC officials to the conduct prior to the incident in the 54 th minute. As soon as the young spectator conducted himself in the manner which we have indicated above, substitute players from the team not active on the field of play and team officials dealt with

5 the issue swiftly and satisfactorily. We are satisfied that this was a one-off incident, which could not have been anticipated nor avoided in the circumstances, that it was dealt with immediately and that steps have been taken by the club to ensure no repeat. 10. Accordingly, in our objective assessment, in the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the club had no control over that one incident and had exercised all due diligence to control the supporters. Therefore, we were satisfied that the charge should be found to be not proven. 11. We should perhaps note that Mr. Jenkins was correct that perhaps the player should have been dealt with. He did not wish to see Red Rum FC vilified. However, it was only Red Rum FC who appeared before us on any charge. We did observe at the time that in the circumstances perhaps the young spectator had committed a racially aggravated public order offence which would have been a matter for the local constabulary. 12. The issue of costs does not arise from this hearing and there was no other issue which we required to address. Robert B Anthony QC, Chairman. 7 th May 2014