Director of Public Prosecutions v Beaumont & Anor

Director of Public Prosecutions v Beaumont & Anor

The phrase 'related to football matches' in paragraph 1(k) of Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1999 is not limited by the time period in section 1(8); the Crown Court erred in law by holding otherwise. The absence of an express declaration of relevance does not invalidate the banning order if the court...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Director of Public Prosecutions; First Defendant: Barry Beaumont; Second Defendant: James Dowling
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Way of Case Stated From Crown Court to High Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Football Banning Orders, Statutory Interpretation, Declaration of Relevance, Public Order Act Offences
Criminal Law Public Order Sports Law Football Banning Orders Statutory Interpretation Declaration of Relevance Public Order Act Offences

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Claimant

Barry Beaumont

First Defendant

James Dowling

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Way of Case Stated From Crown Court to High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the phrase 'related to football matches' in paragraph 1(k) of Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1999 imports the time limitation in section 1(8) of the Act
  2. 2 Whether a declaration of relevance was made by the Magistrates' Court and its effect on the validity of the banning order

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'related to football matches' in paragraph 1(k) of Schedule 1 to the Football Spectators Act 1999 is not limited by the time period in section 1(8); the Crown Court erred in law by holding otherwise. The absence of an express declaration of relevance does not invalidate the banning order if the court considered and concluded the offence was so related.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Crown Court's order quashing the banning order is itself quashed
  • Order of the Magistrates' Court imposing the banning order is revived and stands