Student convicted under controversial anti-sectarian laws.......

[ian1964 10,409]

............but sheriff says he should not have been dragged into court

19 Jan 2014 07:36

 

ADAM RICHMOND walked away from court without a criminal record after a sheriff gave him an absolute discharge, prompting criticism of the law that led to his arrest.

 

 

 

A STUDENT held after chanting abuse about the Pope and the Queen at a football match has been convicted under controversial anti-sectarian laws.

 

But Adam Richmond, 19, walked away without a criminal record after a sheriff said he should not have been dragged into court.

 

The case has sparked a fresh wave of criticism over the Government’s Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act, driven into place two years ago after a bad-tempered Old Firm match and designed to clamp down on sectarian abuse at games and online.

 

Football fans, lawyers and civil liberty campaigners have branded the legislation unnecessary and confused after cases have been questioned when they reached court.

 

Richmond was arrested after police heard him singing “F*** your Pope and f*** your Queen” as Partick Thistle played Celtic at Firhill in October.

 

Thistle fans sing the song to distance themselves from Rangers and Celtic.

 

At Glasgow Sheriff Court, he was found guilty by Sheriff Norman Ritchie QC of behaviour likely to incite public disorder by singing sectarian and offensive remarks.

 

But he told the teenager: “You are not the sort of person who creates the problem and needs this legislation.”

 

He then discharged him absolutely. That means Richmond, from Penilee, Glasgow, has no criminal record despite being found guilty.

 

Yesterday, solicitor advocate Chris Fyffe said: “I struggle to see the point of this Act. One of the major concerns was it had an extremely long reach and was very vague in its terms.

 

“This seems to be being borne out to a certain extent by some of these decisions, suggesting there is a reluctance on the part of the sheriffs to find one person in a crowd of 3000 guilty.

 

“Because of its vagueness, you can have a situation theoretically where somebody is saying something which is, on the face of it, offensive – it doesn’t have to be sectarian or racist and people do shout things at football matches – so there’s a potential there for criminalising football fans for what they have been doing for the past 150 years.

 

“These cases seem to be reflecting the concern a lot of lawyers – and not just defence lawyers but sheriffs as well – are having regarding this legislation.

 

“What it really seems to be doing is focusing on football behaviour as opposed to what many people see

as the real concern, which is sectarianism in Scotland.

 

“It seems we are criminalising people who are letting off steam in a relatively secure environment.”

 

Product design student Richmond was told he was a credible witness until he was asked about singing the song, when his evidence turned “decidedly lukewarm” and his confidence “evaporated”.

 

The Thistle song is supposed to celebrate the club’s neutrality from Old Firm bigotry with the line: “We hate the boys in royal blue, we hate the boys in emerald green, f*** your Pope and f*** your Queen.”

 

Richmond told the court that the song is only sung when Thistle play Celtic or Rangers and the lyrics represent taking a stand against religion in football.

 

Richmond, who has been going to games with his dad since he was six, said: “To me, from my understanding of the song, I don’t see how it can be offensive.”

 

But anti-sectarianism charity Nil By Mouth said they hoped that Richmond had learned his lesson.

 

Campaigns director David Scott said: “The use of this type of language at a match is no longer acceptable no matter what the context.

 

“Fans at all league clubs are warned on the back of their ticket and before the start of games that offensive singing or chanting is not allowed.

 

“Clearly, if this man wants to keep religion out of football, he should not have been singing what he did.”

 

When we contacted Richmond at his home, he declined to comment.

 

But a family friend said: “Adam has never been in trouble in his life. This has been hanging over for him for months and has been a terrible strain.

 

“He was the only one arrested even though he was in a group of about 300 fans.

 

“Adam has been told he will not have to declare this as a conviction when he goes for a job, which is a real relief.

 

“This is a song that the Thistle fans have been singing for years without any previous complaints.

 

“There is no intention of causing offence. All it really does is poke fun at Celtic and Rangers fans.”

 

Partick Thistle declined to comment on the case.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/student-convicted-under-controversial-anti-sectarian-3037633

[Zappa 0]

Interesting case that. As I keep saying, people should never be getting slammed with criminal records for singing something offensive at a football match. The whole concept is flawed to the point of being more idiotic than any of the acts it's supposedly targeting.

 

Not only that, but cops aren't always the sharpest tools in the box, so expecting them to always use a sensible level of discretion and good judgement with these vague and difficult to interpret offensive behaviour laws is just madness.

 

The whole thing is an expensive waste of time and the only people benefiting from it are the lawyers.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

To my mind singing "f*** your Pope and f*** your Queen.”" IS offensive and the whole point of the legislation was to make such action at a football match a criminal offence if it was judged likely to to incite public disorder in the same way is it would be classed as breach of the peace if sung in the street. The legislation was intended to overcome the defence that it was somehow OK to sing such songs inside a football stadium whereas it was not OK to sing them outside.

 

I find these comments from the lawyer extremely odd:

(a) “This seems to be being borne out to a certain extent by some of these decisions, suggesting there is a reluctance on the part of the sheriffs to find one person in a crowd of 3000 guilty.

 

(b) “Because of its vagueness, you can have a situation theoretically where somebody is saying something which is, on the face of it, offensive – it doesn’t have to be sectarian or racist and people do shout things at football matches – so there’s a potential there for criminalising football fans for what they have been doing for the past 150 years.

 

© “What it really seems to be doing is focusing on football behaviour as opposed to what many people see

as the real concern, which is sectarianism in Scotland.

 

because whilst the law is indeed vague:

 

(a) the sheriff DID find him guilty

(b) that's exactly the point, society HAS changed and what was acceptable in the past is no longer so

© that's also the point, the law DOES focus on football behaviour, sectariansism isn't mentioned anywhere in the act, for at least two reasons:

 

(i) it's almost impossible to define

(ii) the Government doesn't believe that you can legislate it out of existence (it's about long term education etc).

 

However, the fact that the the sheriff found him guilty but granted him an absolute discharge on the grounds that he wasn't that sort of person, might perplex the Crown Office even more than if he had been found not guilty.

 

I do agree with Zappa to the extent that putting the onus on your average police constable to decide on the spot whether or not words are (a) offensive and (b) likely to incite disorder, is asking a great deal; but it has to be said that on this occasion the sheriff's verdict proves that the constable was correct in his or her judgement. The greater isssue in the sheriff's mind appears to have been whether or not the charge should have been brought in the first place and the absolute discharge demonstrates clearly that he thought otherwise.

 

Whilst I think it is unlikely that the legislation will repealed (given the efforts the Government went to to drive it through) it is obvious from this and other recent decisions that a drastic overhaul is urgently required.

[RANGERRAB 3,254]

Let's face it this law was targeted at us Rangers supporters first and foremost.You only need to see how much the GB get away with to realise that.

[andy steel 0]

To my mind singing "f*** your Pope and f*** your Queen.”" IS offensive and the whole point of the legislation was to make such action at a football match a criminal offence if it was judged likely to to incite public disorder in the same way is it would be classed as breach of the peace if sung in the street. The legislation was intended to overcome the defence that it was somehow OK to sing such songs inside a football stadium whereas it was not OK to sing them outside.

 

I find these comments from the lawyer extremely odd:

 

 

because whilst the law is indeed vague:

 

(a) the sheriff DID find him guilty

(b) that's exactly the point, society HAS changed and what was acceptable in the past is no longer so

© that's also the point, the law DOES focus on football behaviour, sectariansism isn't mentioned anywhere in the act, for at least two reasons:

 

(i) it's almost impossible to define

(ii) the Government doesn't believe that you can legislate it out of existence (it's about long term education etc).

 

However, the fact that the the sheriff found him guilty but granted him an absolute discharge on the grounds that he wasn't that sort of person, might perplex the Crown Office even more than if he had been found not guilty.

 

I do agree with Zappa to the extent that putting the onus on your average police constable to decide on the spot whether or not words are (a) offensive and (b) likely to incite disorder, is asking a great deal; but it has to be said that on this occasion the sheriff's verdict proves that the constable was correct in his or her judgement. The greater isssue in the sheriff's mind appears to have been whether or not the charge should have been brought in the first place and the absolute discharge demonstrates clearly that he thought otherwise.

 

Whilst I think it is unlikely that the legislation will repealed (given the efforts the Government went to to drive it through) it is obvious from this and other recent decisions that a drastic overhaul is urgently required.

 

When we were a-discussing this a while ago, BH, you replied that you were sure it was aimed at all people, not just Bears or even the OF. This decision kinda flies in the face of that! 'It's OK to shout FTP, as long as you're not a Rangers man, and it's OK to FTQ if you like, so long as you're not a Tim!'

[BrahimHemdani 1]

When we were a-discussing this a while ago, BH, you replied that you were sure it was aimed at all people, not just Bears or even the OF. This decision kinda flies in the face of that! 'It's OK to shout FTP, as long as you're not a Rangers man, and it's OK to FTQ if you like, so long as you're not a Tim!'

 

As I said, Andy, I think that Crown Office will find the entirety of the Sheriff's judgement very strange indeed.

 

Having been involved to some extent on the periphery of the legislation I am in doubt that whilst old firm fans were the straw that broke the camels back and the Government and the Civil Servants at least did intend for the legislation to apply to all fans; I am equally sure tnat you are right to the extent that the sheriff's comment about the accused "not being that sort of person" could be taken as implying that whilst I'm finding you guilty it's kindof OK if your a Partick Thistle fan but not OK if you support either side of the old firm.

 

I am pretty sure that the police will be appopletic about this outcome for precisely that reason.

 

I will email the Civil Servant who guided the legislation through Parliament and see if I can get anything out of him but he's probably had a very bad weekend indeed.

Edited January 20, 2014 by BrahimHemdani
typo

[andy steel 0]

I should think they would find it odd - & I actually think this legal wallah, who has decided to invent a new system of law in Scotland, whereby if a Sheriff disagrees with legislation he can just blithely sweep it aside, wants looking at too.

 

I must admit, my support for the Bill, which was entirely predicated on helping Rangers FC to avoid bad publicity brought about by Rangers fans, is waning very quickly. It really is a bit of a shambles.

[Scott7 5,130]

The bloke was rightly convicted under the Act. (I'm not saying the Act itself is right)

 

The Sheriff guy then had to decide how to punish the individual in front of him. He decided that in the circumstances of the offence and in the circumstances of the individual a punishment was not necessary. Might have been different if I'd been the chap in the dock. e.g. "Should have known better you old fool. £200.00 fine, slammer if I see you here again".

[andy steel 0]

I can't see any logic in a conviction meriting absolutely no punishment, at all, of any kind, Scott.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I can't see any logic in a conviction meriting absolutely no punishment, at all, of any kind, Scott.

 

I am sure that the Lord Advocate, Government Ministers, Civil Servants and the Police will find themselves entirely in agreement with you; which is why I suggested it is time for a drastic overhaul of the Act.