REPORT OF THE PYROTECHNIC AMNESTY TRIAL AT SIXFIELDS FOOTBALL STADIUM SPRING 2014

Transcription

1 REPORT OF THE PYROTECHNIC AMNESTY TRIAL AT SIXFIELDS FOOTBALL STADIUM SPRING 2014

2 Executive Summary The Pyrotechnic Amnesty Bin Trial was conducted at Sixfields Football Stadium in the Spring of It was run in conjunction with Northamptonshire Police, Northampton Town Football Club and Coventry City Football Club. The purpose of the trial was to highlight that the law relating to the possession and use of pyrotechnics in football stadiums in England and Wales, and was implemented due to the increase in pyrotechnics being used in football stadiums in all football leagues in the previous two seasons. The trial was run on a two pronged approach, to place amnesty bins at Sixfields football stadium during the Easter 2014 period, to ascertain whether they would be useful and effective and also to run an education campaign, aimed at younger fans, highlighting the laws which are specific to football spectators, and of which many young fans may have no knowledge. Although the amnesty bins themselves were not a success as there were two incidents of pyrotechnics being used in Sixfields stadium during the trial, and when amnesty bins had been placed at the entrance to the stadium, there was clearly a positive outcome of the trial and attached educational campaign. The laws on pyrotechnic possession and use in stadiums is now better known by many fans, and the trial itself promoted discussion and debate amongst fan groups and other police forces. Since this amnesty bin trial, other police forces have used the educational materials and are developing their own methods of trying to combat the increased use of pyrotechnics in football stadiums, many trialing one or more of the recommendations we have made at the end of this report. This report outlines much of the law surrounding possession and use of pyrotechnics in football stadiums, but also addresses the obligation on football clubs to do more to prevent the use of pyrotechnics within the stadiums. In essence, our recommendations are that the Football Association, Premier League and Football League must address the issues surrounding the use of pyrotechnics, as clearly the threat of imprisonment is not an adequate deterrent, as despite some high profile cases of fans receiving prison sentences for possession of pyrotechnics in a football stadium, the possession and use of such items has vastly increased over the past two seasons. Likewise, the supporter coaches and licensed premises used by football supporters should be aware of their obligations in discouraging the sale and transfer of pyrotechnics in their vehicles and on their premises. Our thanks to Northampton Town Football Club, and Coventry City Football Club in their support for this trial, and to those who assisted in the promotion of the Amnesty Bin Trial. Alison Gurden, Barrister, 1 Gray's Inn Square Chambers, London. PC 1025 Nick Price, County Football Intelligence Officer, Northamptonshire Police. October

3 Introduction This Report has been drafted as a follow up to the Pyrotechnic Amnesty Bin Trial which was undertaken at Sixfields Football Stadium in the Spring of 2014 by Northamptonshire Police in conjunction with Alison Gurden. It provides a brief outline of the law on possession and use of Pyrotechnics in football stadiums, the reason for the trial and the outcomes. The report concludes with some recommendations which it is hoped will be considered in future by both police forces and football clubs. The Law on Possession and/or Use of Pyrotechnics in Football Stadiums in England and Wales According to the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act it is an offence to try to enter, or to enter a football stadium where a regulated football match 2 is to be played, while in possession of a pyrotechnic (a firework, smoke grenade, flare, or anything else which emits smoke). It is also an offence to let off a pyrotechnic in a stadium. The penalty for any of these offences is up to three months imprisonment. These offences also carry the risk that the Crown Prosecution Service will apply to the court for a football banning order 3 which will run for a minimum of three years. There is no distinction in this legislation between someone found in possession of a pyrotechnic and someone who ignites a pyrotechnic. Background to the trial Pyrotechnics at Football Matches in England and Wales In the 2012/13 football season there were 77 recorded arrests for use or possession of pyrotechnics (either smoke grenades or flares) at football matches in England and Wales 4. Of these arrests, 26 were prosecuted in court resulting in convictions, 13 were given a caution in the police station, 3 were prosecuted by way of a summons (and there is no record of whether they were successful prosecutions) and in 9 other arrests there was no further action taken after arrest. This leaves 26 arrests which were charged but there has been no outcome recorded, or bailed with no further information. It may be that some of these cases are still within the court system awaiting trial. In the 2013/14 season, the number of arrests for the possession or use of pyrotechnics increased to Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 Section 2A. (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he has an article or substance to which this section applies in his possession (a) at any time during the period of a designated sporting event when he is in any area of a designated sports ground from which the event may be directly viewed, or (b) while entering or trying to enter a designated sports ground at any time during the period of a designated sporting event at the ground. (2) It is a defence for the accused to prove that he had possession with lawful authority. (3) This section applies to any article or substance whose main purpose is the emission of a flare for the purposes of illuminating or signaling (as opposed to igniting or heating) or the emission of smoke or a visible gas; and in particular it applies to distress flares, fog signals, and pellets and capsules intended to be used as fumigators or for testing pipes, but not to matches, cigarette lighters or heaters. (4) This section also applies to any article which is a firework. 2 'A regulated football match is an association football match in which one or both of the participating teams represents a club which is for the time being a member (whether a full or associate member) of the Football League, the Football Association Premier League, the Football Conference National Division, the Scottish Football League or Welsh Premier League...' Section 3 Football Spectators (Prescription Order) 2004 as amended by the Sports Grounds and Sporting Events (Designation) (Amendment) Order Section 14A Football Spectators Act 1989 makes provision for a football banning order to be considered by the court if a person is convicted of an offence which falls within Schedule 1 of this Act. An offence relating to pyrotechnics under the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 falls within Schedule 1 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (as amended by the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 Schedule 1) arrests inside the stadium and 17 outside the stadium. 2

4 in England and Wales 5. The highest number of these arrests (48) was at Championship League games, and Premier League games (40) 6. This is over 100% increase in arrests for pyrotechnic possession and use compared to the 2012/13 season. Since 2010/11, the Home Office statistics produced every year relating to arrests at football matches and football banning orders imposed, have classified which arrests were for pyrotechnic possession or use 7. The fact there is only three years worth of data on these arrests does not allow for an accurate analysis of whether there is an increasing trend for fans to possess or use pyro in football stadiums, however it is clear that there was an increase in arrests from 32 arrests in 2011/12 to 76 in 2012/13, and 188 in 2013/14. Unfortunately the fact there is nothing more recorded than these figures means that it is not possible to assess whether there has actually been a marked increase in the use of pyro, or whether detection and recording by police and stewards has increased. The use of pyrotechnics is not restricted to one league. In fact it would appear that pyrotechnics were used in 2012/13 in Premier League, Football League and Non-Football League stadiums. The fact that there are many more supporters attending Premier League stadiums would naturally lead to the conclusion that the use of pyrotechnics in Premier League stadiums will be higher than in Football League and Non-Football League. The 2012/13 figures show that there were 29 arrests for pyrotechnics at Premier League stadiums, 21 arrests at Championship Football League stadiums, 1 at a Football League One stadium and 5 at Football League Two stadiums. In 2013/14 there was a slight change in the trend in the use of pyrotechnics. There were 8 more arrests in the Championship League matches than Premier League, but this could be related to an increase of games being played due to the FA Cup matches. Some football clubs have a much higher prevalence of pyrotechnic possession or use than others. But, what should be made clear is that the figures only relate to arrests and not to the use of pyrotechnics. Although football clubs should report to the police all pyrotechnic incidents in their stadiums, and these figures should be referred back to the UK Football Policing Unit, they are not readily reported in the open media, even if such figures exist. Hence, on a cursory look at the figures, it would seem that the use of pyrotechnics is a Premier and Championship Football League problem as the numbers of arrests are higher at these matches. However, this cannot be an accurate assessment as it doesn't take into account the number of fans in attendance at each match, whether there was good cctv or police spotter handcam video coverage which assisted in identifying those who were involved in the possession or use of pyrotechnics. There is more likely to be a high police presence at Premier League and Championship League matches than at League 1 and League 2 matches, hence if the match did not have a police presence, any pyrotechnic possession or use is unlikely to result in an arrest. Although supporters are given a cursory search at most stadiums, the searching at Premier League stadiums is much more intrusive and hence it is more likely that a person trying to secrete pyrotechnics arrests inside the stadium and 44 outside the stadium. 6 Table 5 Home Office Football related arrests and football banning order statistics Season 2013/14 (11 September 2014) 7 Previous to the 2010/11 season the use of pyrotechnic was included in the possession of offensive weapon category, however even taking this into account there were less arrests in the seasons prior to 2012/13. 3

5 into a Premier League Stadium will be discovered than at a lower League stadium. Many lower league stadiums use agency staff as stewards rather than employing their own stewards, and this often results in an inconsistency of stewarding practices. This could account for the arrests outside the stadium, but it does not account for the arrests relating to pyrotechnics in the stadium, unless arrests at the entrance to the stadium are included in the figures for arrests for pyrotechnic possession or use in the stadium. It is also highly likely that those stewards who are agency staff and not regular stewards are not as well briefed in what the pyrotechnics look like. In fact, some of the smoke bombs are very small and can be easily secreted or disguised to look like another item, and the fact that someone attending football has a pyrotechnic in their pocket or on their person does not mean that they will automatically ignite it or release it in the stadium. Much of the pyrotechnic use is when a goal is scored or when a team wins, hence a person attending a match may not use the pyrotechnic on that occasion. From our own observations, it is also possible that those fans who arrive late at the Football League and Non-Football League stadiums are not subject to any searching, or are subject to a very cursory search as the stewards at these matches have to take on more than one role, so once the match commences, their duties are transferred from the gate duties to the crowd management. Hence, late arrivals are likely to just be ushered into the stadium through a side gate. It is also questionable whether the police officers are aware of what to look for when keeping an eye out for pyrotechnics. Those football spotters and football intelligence officers who work at the football matches throughout the season usually have a good knowledge of the different types of pyrotechnics and what they look like prior to being ignited or released. The layout of some stadiums may also cause safety concerns if many fans arrive at the stadium at the last minute, and there is a large crowd at the turnstiles. In such situations the searching may be less strict due to a desire to improve the flow of fans into the stadium. The current practice of officers being drafted in, to police certain fixtures, means that many officers will not have experience of policing football matches and will not be aware of the legislation relating to pyrotechnics Added to this, the current nature of football policing is that many matches are police free fixtures, in 2012/13 58% of the matches were police free. Hence, if pyrotechnics had been taken into the stadium and/or used at these matches it is unlikely that it would have resulted in an arrest in any event, unless the Club had reported the incident to the police and had been able to identify the person involved. It came to our attention that much of the pyrotechnics being used inside and outside the stadiums was being offered for sale on the regulated supporter coaches used by fans traveling to away matches. While it is not an offence in itself, to be in possession of pyrotechnics on the coach, it is undesirable and there is a suspicion that younger fans are being encouraged to purchase the pyrotechnics at a cost of around 3-4 and to then enter the stadium with them. There is a high likelihood that the peer pressure on these supporter coaches is causing the younger fans to become involved with pyrotechnics, these fans are often not aware of the consequences of entering a stadium with pyrotechnics. There is an indication that pyrotechnics are also being handed out or sold in the licensed premises which are used by the supporters pre-match. Again, it is not an offence for a supporter to be in possession of pyrotechnics in the licensed premises, however, as with the supporter coaches it is undesirable as it often leads to the supporters entering the stadium in possession of pyrotechnics, or to 4

6 them releasing the pyrotechnics in the pub or surrounding area 8. Hence, it is actually questionable whether there is a large increase in the use of pyrotechnics at football matches, or whether the recording or detecting of pyrotechnic incidents has become more accurate. A 293% reported increase at Championship games and 340% increase in Football League 2 in 2013/14 are quoted on the FA supported website It is not clear how these figures were obtained or whether they are accurate. However, in view of the fact that there have been more arrests, football clubs, police forces and the Football League have made a concerted effort in the 2012/13 and 2013/14 seasons to try and raise awareness of the fact that it is an offence to take a pyrotechnic into a stadium and/or use pyrotechnics in a stadium. For example, the Football League commenced an online campaign in the 2013/14 season to highlight the fact that pyrotechnic possession and use at a football match is illegal 9. Pyro Amnesty bins have been used at some stadiums, including Cardiff Football Club, Yeovil Football Club, Bristol City Football Club and Leeds Football Club. Chelsea Football Club has highlighted the fact that it imposed a 10 year club ban on fans who possessed a smoke grenade at an away match at Swansea FC. Having spoken to police officers connected to these football clubs and club officials, the pyrotechnic amnesty bins on their own have not been seen as a success, however, when a police dog has been placed at the turnstiles the bins are more likely to be used 10. In general, it appears that pyro amnesty bins are not having an effect in reducing the amount of pyrotechnics being taken into stadiums. The intention of the Sixfields pyro amnesty bin trial was to try and educate fans, particularly young fans, about the law relating to pyrotechnics and the fact that it is classed as a serious offence to enter or attempt to enter a stadium while in possession of a pyrotechnic, an offence which can carry up to three months imprisonment on conviction. The aim of the two pronged approach was that the education programme on its own was unlikely to create the publicity required to make fans aware of the law relating to pyrotechnics. This is evident from the Football League campaign 11 which was placed on the Football League website, and links were placed on many Premier League, and Football League club websites but this did not seem to prevent the use of pyrotechnics. In fact, despite the Football League promotion of the 'Face Pyro Facts' campaign which highlighted the potential dangers of the use of pyrotechnics, and a concerted effort by the Football Supporters Federation ( FSF ) to raise awareness of the law relating to possession of pyrotechnics 12 it would appear that the use of pyrotechnics is increasing rather than decreasing, in stadiums in England and Wales. As it had already been recognised that pyrotechnic amnesty bins on their own have not created the effect of encouraging fans to 'bin' their pyrotechnics, it was decided that a two pronged approach may assist. The educational leaflet aimed at young fans to raise awareness of the law surrounding pyrotechnics at football, and the amnesty bins to provide an angle for the media. 8 It is an offence under Section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875 to release a firework in a public place. The maximum punishment for this is a fine Although it was reported that the bins were used for disposal of controlled substances more than pyro. 11 Ibid

7 Why was Sixfields Stadium chosen for the trial? During the 2013/14 season, Sixfields stadium was the home venue for Northampton Town Football Club, a League 2 club and Coventry City Football Club 13, a League 1 club, the use of Sixfields for the pyro amnesty bin trial meant that the trial would span across two leagues. Although Northampton Town Football Club does not have a reputation for fans using pyrotechnics, there was one arrest for use of a pyrotechnic in the 2012/13. One of five League 2 clubs where there was a pyrotechnic arrest in 2012/13. In the 2013/14 season prior to the trial there was one incidence of a pyrotechnic in Sixfields in the Away fans section at a Northampton Town Football Club match and two incidents of pyrotechnic use in the Away fans section at a Coventry City Football Club match. Northamptonshire Police have a reputation of working with their Home football fans, and PC Nick Price, the County Football Intelligence Officer, has a strong social media following and an active twitter account 14 which is used to communicate with fans. Alison Gurden is a barrister specialising in football supporter law with a strong social network following of football fans, and a good working relationship with the FSF 15. It was considered that this would be a good mix of persons with different positions within the football network to organise and promote the trial. Aims and Objectives of the trial The aim of the trial was to reduce the use of pyro at football matches and to reduce the number of arrests and convictions of persons under 18 for possession of pyrotechnics. The objectives of the trial were: To provide amnesty bins outside the Sixfields stadium to allow supporters to safely dispose of any pyrotechnics on a 'no questions asked' basis; To highlight the law surrounding the possession and use of pyrotechnics at football matches; To determine whether there would be a benefit of placing pyrotechnic amnesty bins at all football stadiums; To assist with Police engagement with football supporters, and the local community. The four matches chosen for the pyro trial were: 18-Apr-2014 Coventry City FC v Swindon Town FC 21-Apr-2014 Northampton Town FC v Portsmouth FC 26-Apr-2014 Coventry City FC v Wolverhampton Wanderers FC 03-May-2014 Northampton Town FC v Oxford United FC Were the aim and objectives met? While it was never anticipated that the four match trial could achieve the eradication of the use of pyrotechnics at football matches in England and Wales, the trial was part of the bigger picture of education and creation of communication links between police, supporter groups and football clubs. In addition, the trial promoted discussion amongst the football intelligence offices and football liaison 13 Coventry City FC played at Sixfields stadium as its home ground for the 2013/14 season. 15 Including producing the smoke bombs, flares and fireworks fact sheet which can be found at 6

8 officers of different police forces who watched the pyrotechnic amnesty trial with interest, supporters of all clubs involved in the trial and also the wider social media network of fans. Intelligence indicated that the use of pyrotechnics was most likely to occur at the last two fixtures. The Coventry City FC v Wolverhampton Wanderers FC match was a Category B game, and the Northampton Town FC v Oxford United FC was a Category C game. There was a failed attempt to set off a smoke bomb at half time in the Coventry City FC v Wolverhampton Wanderers FC match on 26 th April This attempt was made in the away section. The smoke bomb canister was retrieved and photographed by stewards and the PC Nick Price has spoken to the supervisor of the Coventry City FC stewards to ensure that the stewards are aware of what they should be looking out for when searching supporters as they enter the stadium 16. At the final whistle of the Northampton Town FC v Oxford United FC match, there was a celebration by the Northampton Town FC fans as this was the last home match and due to winning the match, Northampton Town FC had secured a place in League 2 for the 2014/15 season. This celebration was anticipated and the stewards and police had already agreed that the Northampton Town FC fans would be allowed on the pitch to congratulate the players. During this celebration, a smoke grenade was let off on the pitch. It was not recovered. In addition, a smoke grenade was let off outside Sixfields stadium prior to the Coventry City FC v Wolverhampton Wanderers FC match. This was set off outside the football footprint area, in the main leisure park. It is not certain as to who was responsible for setting off this smoke grenade, but police officers and Alison Gurden had spoken to a group of young supporters about the trial, and had provided copies of the educational leaflet and explained the law on the use of pyrotechnics. This group was then seen in the vicinity of the smoke grenade at the time it was released; however, police officers who observed the release of the smoke bomb from a distance suggested that the group responsible for releasing the smoke grenade were older males. There is a suspicion that the younger males may have been used as mules to transport the smoke grenade, but this is unsubstantiated. Hence, it is difficult to assess whether the aim was met as pyrotechnics were still taken into Sixfields stadium on two occasions during the trial 17. What it is not possible to assess is whether it reduced the amount of pyrotechnics that would have been taken into the stadium, although it is suspected that without the intervention of Alison Gurden and the police officers at the Coventry City FC v Wolverhampton Wanderers FC match, another smoke grenade would have made its way into the stadium and may have been used. The police and football fan engagement during the trial created an atmosphere where fans were prepared to talk to officers and Alison Gurden about the use of pyrotechnics at stadiums. Many reenforced the views which were already identified by the Premier League and Football League that many fans don't think it is a problem, and enjoy the atmosphere created by the smoke. Many were quite open in their discussions on how pyrotechnics are purchased. Many fans stated that pyrotechnics 16 As the smoke bomb did not activate, it was possible to review the packaging and to ascertain that it was originally purchased from a polish supplier and that it was a hand held smoke bomb which in addition to producing smoke, produced a flare like flame at the end of the smoke burn. 17 It should be noted that Coventry City FC used their own stewards at Sixfields. Hence, it was not the same stewards working at both matches where pyrotechnics were taken into the stadium. 7

9 are readily available on the supporter coaches traveling to away games, and that the smoke bombs are very cheap to purchase (between 2 and 4 for a smoke bomb and slightly more for a flare). When asked about how they found out the information about their football club, the younger fans stated that they monitored social media, but the older fans still relied on club newsletters and programmes. In addition, the trial prompted football officers from other regions of England and Wales to make contact with PC Nick Price and Alison Gurden and discuss their own experiences of pyrotechnic use and pyrotechnic amnesty bin trials. Hence, the trial promoted engagement between officers in the football community. There was also interest from overseas journalists, particularly in Australia where the use of pyrotechnic is becoming more prevalent Were the objectives met? Two pyro amnesty bins were purchased, at minimal cost, by Northamptonshire Police and placed outside Sixfields stadium around an hour and half prior to kick off on the four fixtures. A single bin was placed on the stairs from the car park to the stadium, with the aim that it would be seen by home and away supporters. A single bin was also placed between two of the away supporter gates outside the stadium. There was one away supporter gate which was quite separate from the amnesty bin; however, due to the layout of the away supporter gates, it was not possible for one bin to cover all three gates. The amnesty bins were clearly marked as pyro amnesty bins. The trial was advertised in the Northampton Town FC programmes sold at Sixfields stadium during the trial, and on the regional BBC news and regional commercial radio news. No pyrotechnics were placed in the amnesty bin during the trial. The educational leaflet 18 was produced and publicised on social media and on Alison Gurden's blog 19, and copies were handed out at the stadium. In addition, a section of Alison Gurden's blog 20 was dedicated to teaching materials which could be used by secondary school teachers to create a lesson on football supporter law and other issues surrounding football policing and the media portrayal of football fans. This section of the blog received over 100 hits during the period of the trial and remains as a live page which can be promoted to teachers in the future. Likewise the educational leaflet was not match or season specific and can be used during the 2014/15 season. An online survey has been carried out aimed at fans who attended Sixfields stadium during the period of the pyro trial. What has become apparent is that over 70% of those fans who responded to the survey attended both matches Northampton Town FC matches at Sixfields during the pyro amnesty bin trial. Of those only around 25% were aware of the amnesty bin trial and saw the bins. Around 45% of fans were aware of the trial but did not see the bin. Of those fans, 59% were aware that it is a criminal offence to take pyrotechnic into a stadium, but didn't realise that this risked a prison sentence of up to three months. Only 4.5% did not know it was an offence to take pyrotechnics into the stadium. Only 25% of the fans who responded to the survey saw the educational leaflet on social media. Of those fans who attended Sixfields for the Coventry City FC matches, the results are very similar, although less

10 fans attended both matches (this is likely due to the fact that those responding to the survey were more likely to be away fans as many Coventry City FC fans were boycotting the home games at Sixfields stadium due to their desire for Coventry City FC to return to Coventry). Between 25% and 50% answered positively to the question of whether they would like pyrotechnic amnesty bins to be placed at Sixfields stadium during the 2014/15 season. There was less success with the leaflet itself, with around 80% of fans responding to the survey stating that they did not see the leaflet. Conclusions There is no doubt that the pyro amnesty bin trial increased the awareness among many fans attending Sixfields stadium of the criminal sanctions which can be imposed for the use of pyrotechnics. The main means of promoting the pyrotechnic amnesty bin trial was social media, via Twitter and Facebook, but the benefit of the placing the pyrotechnic amnesty bins at the stadium was that it also created interest from the local media. The trial was mentioned on the local radio news and BBC Northampton filmed two segments for their news. It is clear that without the pyrotechnic amnesty bins, the media interest would have been much less as there would have been nothing for the media to tag onto. The fact that the fan awareness of the criminal sanctions has been raised within such a short period of this trial indicates that despite the Premier League and Football League online campaign, there are still many fans that did not realise the potential consequences of taking pyrotechnics into a stadium. There were still many fans that were unaware of the trial and, if they were aware of the trial they did not read the leaflet. While social media is a very good means of reaching a large number of fans, and it is free, there are many fans who are not regular social media users, and who would not have seen the leaflet due to this. They may have heard about the pyrotechnic amnesty bin trial on local radio and news, but this still would not have provided them with a copy of the educational leaflet. In addition the leaflet was aimed at fewer than 18 year old fans, and this would have meant that many adult fans would not have read the leaflet. The amnesty bins themselves were not used, and it is questionable whether they were in the correct location for fans to see them. However, as with many stadiums, there are many entrances to the stadium and it is not possible to site a bin in view of all of the entrances while keeping it away from areas where the police congregate. At present, the football clubs are attempting to address the use of pyrotechnics by imposing lengthy club bans on fans that have been identified as using pyrotechnics in their stadium 21. However, there remains a lot more that could be implemented by the clubs themselves such as making fans aware that the club has to respond to the FA after pyrotechnics are used in the stadium, providing details of measures that are in place to prevent pyrotechnics. Fans should also be aware that the club away allocation can be restricted by the safety group if there are concerns over the regular use of pyro by certain fans. 21 AFC Rushden and Diamonds have banned two fans for three years for the use of pyro and other breaches of ground regulations. This did not involve any criminal charges but was in consultation with PC Price. 9

11 Clubs could make more use of their websites and announcements at the stadium to highlight the issues surrounding pyrotechnic use. For example the Stoke City FC Supporters Council has discussed measures 22 of promotion of the dangers of the use of pyrotechnics and laws but there is nothing on the Stoke City FC website aimed at educating fans on the risks of using pyrotechnics, with regard to the likely criminal prosecution and football banning order, or club ban. Stoke City FC had three times as many arrests for pyrotechnic possession or use in the 2013/14, than the second highest team, Aston Villa. Fan pressure is recognised as being a strong power and should be utilised to address the pyrotechnic situation. The arrest of a fan and subsequent football banning order for that fan does not act as a deterrent to other fans, as is evidenced by the increased use of pyrotechnics in the 2013/14 season. A club ban may have more effect, for example the Chelsea FC fans who were convicted of possessing a smoke grenade at a Swansea FC v Chelsea FC match in 2012/13 were given a football banning order for 6 years, but also received a 10 year club ban from Stamford Bridge. It was the Stamford Bridge ban which created most discussion on the fan forums. Hence if fans see their away allocation being restricted, or they miss the start of too many games due to stricter searching regimes, the fans will start to place pressure on those fans who feel the need to take pyrotechnics into the stadium. More onus should be placed on the football clubs to work with their fans to reduce the use of pyrotechnics at their matches. 22 January 2014 Supporters Council meeting minutes 10

12 Recommendations Football clubs should regularly promote the dangers of pyrotechnics, and the consequences of their possession and use in the stadium, on their websites and by announcements in the stadium 23. In addition, schools should be encouraged to get involved and to promote educational programmes which focus on the likely criminal offences and sanctions which particularly affect youth supporters. The coach companies which regularly transport football fans to away matches should be encouraged to refuse to transport pyrotechnics on their coaches 24. The Football Clubs should lead on the Pyro amnesty bins, in conjunction with the Face Pyro Facts campaign run by the FA. The location of the bins will need to be tested at each stadium, as the layout of each stadium differs, and will need to be in cooperation with the Football Club and other agencies, and should be placed in areas which are not under close surveillance. Pyrotechnic amnesty bins although themselves not very effective, as the trial proved, provide a means of promoting the law on pyro as it improves the media and fan interest. Stewards and police should be trained to identify the types of pyrotechnics that are being taken into stadiums, and should also be aware that children are sometimes used as mules to bring pyrotechnics into a stadium. Better training by both stewards and police would allow any pyrotechnics to be dealt with safely and appropriately, but also to use their discretion when children are found with pyrotechnics. Football Clubs who require their stewards to multitask should still ensure that fans that arrive late are subjected to the same search procedures as those who arrive on time. It is hoped that these recommendations can be taken forward, and developed further by football clubs and police forces during the 2014/15 season, with the aim of reducing the number of arrests for possession or use of pyrotechnic in football stadiums in England and Wales. It is feared that a further increase in the number of pyrotechnic incidents and arrests will lead to additional legislation, in an area of sport which is already saturated with legislation, and controls on supporters. 23 The Westpac stadium in Wellington, New Zealand has a recorded announcement outside the stadium explaining that pyrotechnics and other items are prohibited in the stadium. The announcement carries the slogan so if you've got anything dodgy, do yourself a favor and dump it'. 24 It is noted that the Senior Traffic Commissioner s guidelines, Statutory Document No. 1. Good Repute and Fitness, relating to the transportation of alcohol and pyrotechnics will be in force for the 2014/15 season and the educational programme could be linked to this. 'Annex 3: Guidelines on Sporting Events in England and Wales. PSV operators are reminded of the terms of Section 2A of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol) Act which prohibits the possession of a firework or an article or substance, whose main purpose is the emission of a flare, smoke or a visible gas, at any time during the period of, while entering or trying to enter a designated football sporting event...it is an offence for an operator of a PSV (or his servant or agent) to knowingly cause or permit the carriage of alcohol on journeys to which these Regulations apply. In addition to these statutory provisions, the police have asked that operators comply with the following guidelines when conveying passengers to such sporting events:...(g) Intoxicating liquor, flares or similar pyrotechnics, must not be carried on coaches traveling to or from designated grounds. Operators will draw hirers' attention to the requirements of the law, and drivers shall, as far as reasonably practical, supervise boarding passengers and check that they are not obviously carrying intoxicating alcohol, flares and similar pyrotechnics. Drivers will not be expected to carry out baggage and body searches, nor will they be expected to confiscate alcohol or to remove passengers without police assistance. Operators may add a condition of entry to the PSV that a voluntary search may be undertaken... Operators are expected to comply with these guidelines on a voluntary basis. However if the police inform the Traffic Commissioner of any failure on an operator's part to comply with them, the Commissioner will be likely to apply them as a formal condition to that operator's licence under the authority of Section 16(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act. 11