Leeds United policing costs dispute

[bob monkhouse]

Leeds United has won its High Court action against West Yorkshire Police over who should pay for policing around the stadium on match days.

The club had argued policing streets and car parks near its Elland Road ground was the force's responsibility.

Mr Justice Eady agreed these were not special police services and said the force must repay the club.

West Yorkshire Police said the judgement would have a "significant impact" on police and the taxpayer.

The club claimed wider policing fell within the scope of normal police obligations to maintain public order. Mr Justice Eady ruled the club should not pay for such policing.

Michael Beloff QC, for the club, had told Mr Justice Eady the action was "in the nature of a test case" and the footballing and policing worlds hoped the ruling would provide "powerful guidance" on the issue.

The force must now repay the club the costs of wider policing from the past three years. The amount is so far unknown.

He had said the club was content to pay for services within the stadium and on land owned or controlled by it, but policing on land not owned or controlled by the club did not constitute special police services.

"West Yorkshire Police's insistence on charging Leeds United Football Club for such policing is illegal," he added.

John Beggs QC, for the police, had told the court the footprint around the stadium was a tightly drawn and strategically determined boundary.

The judge concluded that the services fell within the normal constabulary duty to keep the peace.

In a statement, Leeds United's chief executive Shaun Harvey said the payments to police had been made under protest.

He said: "We have never objected to paying for the cost of policing on land owned, leased or controlled by the club."

"However, West Yorkshire Police's stance to seek to charge us for policing the public highway and for areas away from the ground is a step too far."

"We have been paying under protest for the last three seasons on this basis and are pleased to have received this clarification in a dispute which was only capable of being resolved in front of a judge."

West Yorkshire Police said the judgement had significant implications for the policing of West Yorkshire's communities and cost to the taxpayer.
A statement said: "The judgement in favour of the club highlights the legal difficulties the force faces in minimising the large amounts of public money being spent on policing Leeds United.

The force said it graded games from A to C "in accordance with their anticipated level of risk [of trouble]", with category C being the highest-risk game.

The statement added: "By way of illustration, a category C football match for the coming season will cost the force about £80,000 of which we will seek to recover only £62,000 from Leeds United.

"If the High Court's judgement limits that further, the shortfall would have to be met by drawing up to 180 officers away from neighbourhood policing and patrol teams across West Yorkshire on a Saturday afternoon, just to police a football match.

"We welcome the fact that the judge recognised the invidious position the force faces and the possibility of the force being unable to support the club's existing match arrangements in the present economic climate."

In his ruling, the judge said there was no single drain on West Yorkshire Police's diminishing resources greater than that of policing the club's matches, and it was not surprising that it wished to recover as much as it reasonably could.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Fair enough I guess.

Will this have a knock on effect of police requesting a limit to away fans, I wonder?

 

[severnside gull]

Football clubs may well now find themselves facing police objections to licences and seeking to influence the timing of matches even more than they do now (for example objecting to Sunday and Bank Holiday games). I would suggest there is every chance that police objections in such cases will prevail. Pubs may also find themselves forced to close on matchdays and matchday evenings - they will be pleased. Local derbies and potentially problematic games may have to be played in front of home supporters only.

On the plus side there may be a return to more sensible levels of policing - there should surely be very very few at the grounds or surrounding streets as that is clearly the responsibility of the club. I am sure a senior police officer on duty as liaison can advise the club secutrity chiefs. If there is trouble betwen fans then it is clearly the clubs' responsibility and they will risk losing their licences. Car parks should be policed by security staff hired by the car park owner and funded from charges. Public transport to many venues may also become a thing of the past for some games if trouble is expected.

This would leave police to patrol local transport interchanges and to limit the number of officers they commit.

 

[amexee]

Football clubs may well now find themselves facing police objections to licences and seeking to influence the timing of matches even more than they do now (for example objecting to Sunday and Bank Holiday games). I would suggest there is every chance that police objections in such cases will prevail. Pubs may also find themselves forced to close on matchdays and matchday evenings - they will be pleased. Local derbies and potentially problematic games may have to be played in front of home supporters only.

On the plus side there may be a return to more sensible levels of policing - there should surely be very very few at the grounds or surrounding streets as that is clearly the responsibility of the club. I am sure a senior police officer on duty as liaison can advise the club secutrity chiefs. If there is trouble betwen fans then it is clearly the clubs' responsibility and they will risk losing their licences. Car parks should be policed by security staff hired by the car park owner and funded from charges. Public transport to many venues may also become a thing of the past for some games if trouble is expected.

This would leave police to patrol local transport interchanges and to limit the number of officers they commit.

I agree. I think leeds have shot themselves in the foot.

This paragraph sums it up

"We welcome the fact that the judge recognised the invidious position the force faces and the possibility of the force being unable to support the club's existing match arrangements in the present economic climate."

Basically, Oh dear Mr Bates, you can no longer be charged for our services outside the ground, and therefore we cannot afford to police your matches, so therefore we object to you playing.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Double edged sword really...if there is trouble at Brighton station area between rival fans could you really expect the club to pay...The Albion have no juristiction in that area therefore are not responsible...if it is on Station premises it's the responsibilty of the railway police...if it is on the streets then the Sussex police assume the responsibility...if it is in the confines of the Amex then the club should pay the police...and to tell the truth...I'm not worried because this vodka is going down well.....Ole'

 

[Cesar Chavez]

This judgement could have serious ramifications for the future of policing not just football, but also other sporting and major events. For example the view of the MPS generally is to insist that the event organiser assume responsibility for paying for directly related police costs, including surrounding the venue. The arrangements at the Emirates typify this new approach. At the time of the West Ham/Millwall unrest at Upton Park 2/3 seasons back it was alleged that a dispute between West Ham and the MPS over police costs may have contributed to a reduced poloice presence in the build up to the game, when most of the trouble ocurred.
The Olympics are not imune either, there has been considerable debate regarding who should pay for policing of the so called 'last mile' - the walk from transport drop off (tube station, bus/coach interchange etc) to the venue itself.

As pointed out above, what may appeasr to be a victory for, in this case Leeds, may actually prove, in the longer term, to contribute to less tolerance of kick off times and other such matters, including, as suggested, away support.

 

[Wardy]

Can see a move to a lot more lunchtime kickoffs. Added to that pubs being told they cannot open, limit on away fans, limit on home fans for clubs with a history of trouble, drop in attendances due not only the limit on number of fans but also due to the fact that your casual supporter may not want to risk going.

Can see Leeds point but would love to see the look on the face of the commissioner of West Yorkshire Police when the next request comes in to move a game to a Friday night / Sunday / Monday night so it can be shown on sky.

 

[GT49er]

With Leeds all the way on this - the police have latched on to so many things, not just football, to fleece for gratuitous overtime. There's a small town near where I live that used to have a music festival - good fun, no trouble. A couyple of youths might have a punch-up somewhere, but nothing to bother anyone else; then the police demanded that they should be involved, and wanted (I believe) £40,000 pounds to provide unnecessary policing, or the festival couldn't be held; it isn't, any more.
Good for Leeds United!