POLICING HOMOPHOBIA AT THE ALBION: A NEW REPORT

I recently made a request to Sussex Police, based on the repeat ‘Tweeting’ of arrest and ejection statistics for homophobic offences at Albion games, by Darren Balkham, the Sussex Police football liaison officer. I was curious to discover how many of these ejections and arrests resulted in criminal prosecutions against those involved. Thankfully, the Freedom of Information Act allowed me to request this sort of information from Sussex Police, and dictated timescales within which they had to respond to my request.

I have to report disappointment in having to find all the details of how to make this request myself, despite two undertakings from Darren Balkham to assist me, including one promise to address the broken Sussex Police FOI submission form. To my knowledge the facility to make such an electronic submission is still not working. I did not hear back from Darren Balkham following his final undertaking to address the problems I was having... once he was back in the office. I can only assume that he’s still out and about somewhere apprehending villains.

The questions I sought answers to were as follows (in bold), with the answers I received from Sussex Police inserted beneath them:

In relation to policing at The Amex stadium, for BHAFC match days that occurred in the calendar year 2013, I would like to know the following;

Number of allegations of homophobic behaviour/abuse reported to the Police by the public or stewards ;

Unfortunately we do not have this information in a centrally collated format and would require the manual search of documents and files, in order to answer your questions.

Number of instances of homophobic behaviour/abuse detected by Police staff/officers (excluding those that were initially reported by the public or stewards);

Separate data detailed below. The data is based on data from our custody system as the crime system does not have a homophobic marker to match that on the custody record, and will not correspond to the data from custody.

Number of persons ejected from the stadium based on homophobic behaviour/abuse;

Separate data detailed below. The data is based on data from our custody system as the crime system does not have a homophobic marker to match that on the custody record, and will not correspond to the data from custody.

Number of arrests in and around the stadium, and on any journey by public transport to or from the stadium, as a result of homophobic behaviour/abuse;

Separate data detailed below. The data is based on data from our custody system as the crime system does not have a homophobic marker to match that on the custody record, and will not correspond to the data from custody.

Number of persons charged as a result of homophobic behaviour/abuse;

Separate data detailed below. The data is based on data from our custody system as the crime system does not have a homophobic marker to match that on the custody record, and will not correspond to the data from custody.

Statistics on recommendations for prosecution made by investigating officers, as opposed to the number of cautions issued and prosecutions commenced (i.e. how many times did an investigating officer think a prosecution was worthwhile and requested a decision from a senior officer or the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and, from within that number, how many times was a caution issued, how many times was a prosecution not commenced and how many prosecutions were undertaken?);

Unfortunately we do not have this information in a centrally collated format and would require the manual search of documents and files, in order to answer your questions.

Copies of decision-records for those cases where decisions were made not to prosecute (i.e. where no prosecution was undertaken, or where a caution was issued), including the organisation and grade of the person making the decision (redacted as necessary to protect people’s identities, or copied onto plain-paper formats if document-structures and formats are considered sensitive):

Unfortunately we do not have this information in a centrally collated format and would require the manual search of documents and files, in order to answer your questions.

Number of cautions issued as a result of homophobic behaviour/abuse;

Separate data detailed below. The data is based on data from our custody system as the crime system does not have a homophobic marker to match that on the custody record, and will not correspond to the data from custody.

Number of convictions obtained as a result of homophobic behaviour/abuse;

Unfortunately we do not have this information in a centrally collated format and would require the manual search of documents and files, in order to answer your questions.

Details of sentences/fines/community service orders imposed for those convictions (if these are not available to Sussex Police might I please be directed to the correct contact within the CPS or the Court Service to make this request, although I would hope that the PNC would hold this information).

Unfortunately we do not have this information in a centrally collated format and would require the manual search of documents and files, in order to answer your questions.

Copies of guidance and policy documents for staff/officers who have homophobic behaviour/abuse reported to them, or witnessed by them.

Section 21 - Information reasonably accessed by other means.

In terms of Section 21 of the FOI Act 2000, information reasonably accessible by other means, I can confirm that the above policy can be found on the Sussex Police home page.

Please see below link which will direct you straight to the appropriate policy.

LINK

If such statistics are maintained, I would be keen to know how many of each of the above categories (apart from nos. 10 and11) relate to home fans and how many relate to away fans.

This would create new data which a public authority is not required to do under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

While some of these answers are useful, others strike me as pretty unhelpful; but I’ll get to that in a moment.

The separately provided data revealed the following statistics (I have inserted the details of the away team although I am unaware whether those arrested were home or away supporters) –

This shows that the alleged offender was referred to the Courts to determine whether they were guilty in only four of nine cases of reported homophobic abuse. 

Paragraph 15 of the Guidance from the Director of Public Prosecutions (http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/directors_guidance/dpp_guidance_5.html ) indicates that the Police cannot make their own charging decision where ‘hate crimes’ are concerned (i.e. they must seek the approval of the CPS to charge someone, unlike some low-level criminal offences, e.g. shoplifting). Therefore, the decisions made where the alleged offender was not charged would all have been taken by the CPS, whether the Police recommended this action or not. 

In light of the advances made in the CPS’s engagement and equality processes over the past 5-10 years, it is surprising to see so few recent decisions to charge where such an offence was concerned. 

Paragraph 26 of the above guidance clearly indicates that paperwork relating to what decision was made, and why, should be held. The answer to question seven indicated that the Police do not collate this paperwork centrally. 

FOI requests can result in the person making the request being asked to pay if that request will cost the organisation more than £450 to respond. I may have to go back to Sussex Police and ask them why a manual search for nine pieces of paper would exceed this financial limit, either in staff hours or in subsequent photocopying costs.

I’m also surprised that, in relation to question 10, the Police National Computer does not contain details of any sentences or fines imposed or, if it does, that is not considered to be ‘centrally collated’ within this system. I would have been very interested to see whether the Criminal Justice System imposed fines commensurate with offences of racism, in similar circumstances. 

Compare the Court-imposed fine for Colin Kazim-Richards’ homophobic gesture (£750) with the FA-imposed fine for John Terry’s racial abuse of Anton Ferdinand (£220,000 and a four-game ban), or Luis Suarez’s verbal assault on Patrice Evra (£40,000 and a four-match ban). 

(That said, a quick ‘Google’ search revealed that a Derby fan found guilty of racist abuse of players in 2013 was fined just £219 [plus £750 costs], although he was banned from attending games for three years. It doesn’t take much to see that the Court system lets homophobes and racists off more-lightly than the FA does. It will be interesting to see, if CKR’s conviction is upheld at appeal, whether the FA impose as high a fine and ban on him as they did Terry and Suarez.)

In relation to the available statistics it is a surprise to see that, in light of the media-reported prevalence of homophobic abuse levelled at Brighton fans, only nine people were arrested throughout 2013, on suspicion of such offences, and that the Police kept no statistics to show how many allegations of homophobic behaviour were made to them. This failing is consistent with the Police performance highlighted in the BBC’s Panorama episode that addressed similar problems (i.e. reports of homophobic abuse being made but the Police recording nothing of the allegation). 

UKBA have recently received lots of criticism regarding how they record and account for ‘allegations’ of immigration offences that are made by the public. So much criticism in fact that they have implemented a separate database to count them and account for what happened as a result - LINK

While these immigration statistics look poor (1 in 100 allegations results in action being taken) at least they know how many allegations there are and so can, presumably, analyse them in some way to see whether they need to target their resources more-effectively. It would appear that Sussex Police aren’t yet quite as effective as UKBA... or their answers are as suggested earlier, unhelpful.

However, it is worthy of positive comment that since the change in policy last summer (regarding intolerance of such behaviour), all persons arrested for homophobic offences have been charged. Whether this reflects a better attitude from the Police, the CPS, or both I cannot say.

Before the change of policy, the charging of only one person out of six arrested for homophobic abuse is uncomfortable reading, particularly when half of those had no further action taken against them.

I do not know whether the names of those arrested were relayed to the club they support for consideration of some other form of action. I also do not know whether details of the fans who have been charged have been passed to their club. I would hope that such an action is permitted under the Data Protection Act, and that clubs are encouraged to ban supporters who aim homophobic abuse at others.

It will be interesting to see, in a year’s time, whether a similar request for information is responded to with a similar lack of collated data, or whether performance monitoring is better able to detail the number of allegations made, as opposed to the number of occasions when the Police have seen fit to make an arrest.

Having travelled to the Amex alongside away fans indulging in homophobic abuse (Leeds fans this year singing “We can see you sucking dick”), it was disappointing to see the Sussex Police officer in the same train carriage making no attempts to suppress the abuse at the time, and no efforts to deal with the ringleaders of the abuse after arriving at Falmer; and all of this after the change in policy to be tougher on homophobic behaviour and chanting. Is it any wonder there were only nine arrests in 2013?

I accept that a single officer attempting to limit abuse from a large group of fans is in a dangerous position but once fans alighted the train and more Police staff were present, I saw the officer summon no assistance, speak to none of the abusive fans in question, and make no notes about what had happened. I ‘tweeted’ about this to Sussex Police (not the most-robust of actions, I admit) but I wasn’t asked for any further details or given any advice. The FOI response I received clearly illustrates that there were no arrests for homophobic abuse by the Leeds fans that day.

There are many who still see homophobic abuse as acceptable banter. There are also those who repeatedly claim that homophobia never crosses their mind when they’re going to a football match, so they don’t understand why others are so concentrated in their efforts to raise awareness of it.

I have never heard anyone openly say that eliminating racism at football grounds is unnecessary in their eyes because the race or skin colour of a player is not something they care about. While it is right that most people don’t care what race someone is, it is also right that the same people are determined to eliminate racism from football and care about the impact it has on all people, not just those at whom the abuse or discrimination is directed. I don’t understand why this attitude doesn’t apply to homophobia.

Maybe it’s because the homophobic abuse is aimed at the fans, not the players... but if racist abuse were aimed at fans, everybody would be rightly appalled by it.

Maybe it’s because sexual orientation isn’t visible and so it’s hard to identify those at whom the abused is aimed... but when it’s aimed at all Brighton fans (the majority of whom will be heterosexual, statistically), maybe they don’t care because it doesn’t feel to them that they are being abused for something that they care about.

I’ve heard numerous responses to homophobic abuse, amongst them, “one-nil to the nancy-boys” when we score. If racial abuse along the lines of monkey chants and similar was aimed at our fans, would a response of (with all apologies for writing this) “one-nil to the banana eaters” be acceptable? Of course not, because it promotes the negative, discriminatory attitudes that racism celebrates.

So, when Albion fans are chanting “one-nil to the nancy-boys” while holding a ‘limp-wrist’ aloft to the opposition fans, are they eliminating homophobia, reinforcing it, or just indulging in banter?

Racism and homophobia are both classified as ‘hate incidents/crime’ by the Police and I do not understand why one appears to be taken more seriously than the other. It is strange that people of all races see racism as unacceptable, but people of different sexual orientations do not all see homophobia as unacceptable. Hopefully one day this will change. Is that something you want to contribute to?

Thanks to Dan Aitch for this article.