According to the news reports this evening, British police in Portugal
are videoing groups of English football supporters in Portugal,
gathering evidence of offences such as racial chanting and lewd
behaviour, which, although not evidence of offences under Portugese
law, are intended to be used to bring the offenders to book back in
the UK with a view to obtaining banning orders against said
individuals.

How can they do this?(and please spare me the "welcome to the
totalitarian Blair state bull****). What is the actual legal basis for
using video footage of acts committed overseas, within the EU, in a
territory where those acts are not offences, to bring charges against
people in the UK?

Brian

In message , David Keates
writes

So it would seem that the police are gathering evidence in relation to a
complaint under s. 14B. Note that this is a complaint, not a criminal
charge. A person complained of is not facing a criminal conviction but a
banning order.

It not very far from prosecuting someone for some act that, although
legal in the jurisdiction the act is committed, would have been an
offence if done in the UK.

The next step could be to prosecute UK motorists, when they return to
the UK, for exceeding 70mph on a German autobahn.

--
Mike

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:35:15 +0100, "David Keates"
wrote:


"bigbrian" wrote in message
.. .


According to the news reports this evening, British police in Portugal
are videoing groups of English football supporters in Portugal,
gathering evidence of offences such as racial chanting and lewd
behaviour, which, although not evidence of offences under Portugese
law, are intended to be used to bring the offenders to book back in
the UK with a view to obtaining banning orders against said
individuals.

How can they do this?(and please spare me the "welcome to the
totalitarian Blair state bull****). What is the actual legal basis for
using video footage of acts committed overseas, within the EU, in a
territory where those acts are not offences, to bring charges against
people in the UK?

Brian

The legal basis comes from the Football Spectators Act 1989, as amended by
the Football (Disorder) Act 2000.

s. 14A allows for banning orders to be applied for once a person has been
convicted of a relevant offence.

s. 14B allows for banning orders to be sought where a Chief Officer of
Police believes: "that the respondent has at
any time caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United
Kingdom or elsewhere."

"violence or disorder" in whose jurisdiction? Can it really be enough
that a UK "Chief Officer of Police" is allowed to decide what does or
doesn't constitute "violence or disorder" perpetrated in another
jurisdiction, legal under that country's own legislation but possibly
inconsitent with UK laws, for the purposes of obtaining a banning
order in the UK?

Banning orders are sought from the magistrates court and apply to all
designated football matches, for which see the Football Spectators
(Designation of Football Matches in England and Wales) Order 1999.

So it would seem that the police are gathering evidence in relation to a
complaint under s. 14B. Note that this is a complaint, not a criminal
charge. A person complained of is not facing a criminal conviction but a
banning order.

Exactly the info I was looking for, but absolutely scandalous. That a
previous complaint about "disorder" in, say, Italy, which may not be
an offence per se in Italy, should be used by UK police to prevent
someone from travelling to Italy is frankly outrageous.

Brian

In message , bigbrian
writes
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:35:15 +0100, "David Keates"
wrote:
So it would seem that the police are gathering evidence in relation to a
complaint under s. 14B. Note that this is a complaint, not a criminal
charge. A person complained of is not facing a criminal conviction but a
banning order.

Exactly the info I was looking for, but absolutely scandalous. That a
previous complaint about "disorder" in, say, Italy, which may not be
an offence per se in Italy, should be used by UK police to prevent
someone from travelling to Italy is frankly outrageous.

Agreed 110%

Taking this a little further, consider a situation where something
illegal in the UK is obligatory in another jurisdiction. I'm not sure
if the law on firearms in Kennesaw applies to non-US citizens but, for
the sake of this argument, let's presume it does.

A Englishman goes to Kennesaw (USA), for whatever reason, and rents a
house as he expects to be there for some time (a year or so). As a
householder he's required to own a gun and ammunition so, being a
law-abiding person, he's buys a cheap handgun and a few rounds of ammo.
Unbeknown to him, a UK police officer on holiday witnesses this
purchase. Just before he returns to the UK, a year later, he sells (or
otherwise disposes of) his gun and ammo and returns with only those
things he can legally import and possess in the UK. As soon as he goes
through passport control he's arrested and faces a minimum 5 years
inside for possessing a firearm because what he did (and was obliged to
do) in Kennesaw was illegal under UK law.

Of course, he could have just broken Kennesaw law instead but committing
crimes in foreign jurisdiction isn't a good advertisement for ones own
country.
--
Mike

In article ,
bigbrian wrote:
How can they do this?(and please spare me the "welcome to the
totalitarian Blair state bull****). What is the actual legal basis for
using video footage of acts committed overseas, within the EU, in a
territory where those acts are not offences, to bring charges against
people in the UK?

There are (or were) some child protection laws that did this, too. They
were designed to stop 'sex tourism'.

I think the law must be framed to explicitly allow charges to be brought
when the act was committed outside the UK, but IANAL.

Cheers,


--
You dont have to be illiterate to use the Internet, but it help's.

"bigbrian" wrote

Exactly the info I was looking for, but absolutely scandalous. That a
previous complaint about "disorder" in, say, Italy, which may not be
an offence per se in Italy, should be used by UK police to prevent
someone from travelling to Italy is frankly outrageous.

I know that you specifically asked not to receive this reply, but, "Welcome
to the totalitarian Blair state." We cannot have our citizens circumventing
the law by travelling to a place where the act is legal, can we?

--
Cynic

In article , Mike
writes
In message , David Keates
writes

So it would seem that the police are gathering evidence in relation to a
complaint under s. 14B. Note that this is a complaint, not a criminal
charge. A person complained of is not facing a criminal conviction but a
banning order.

It not very far from prosecuting someone for some act that, although
legal in the jurisdiction the act is committed, would have been an
offence if done in the UK.

The next step could be to prosecute UK motorists, when they return to
the UK, for exceeding 70mph on a German autobahn.

I suppose it's only a matter of time, now, before they come for those of
us who've bought a drink overseas after 11:00 p.m.

I understand that burglars often **** themselves when on the job, hence
the little 'gifts' often left on people's living room carpets, bedroom
floors, etc. It used to be thought that it was down to adrenaline, but
on reflection I think it's more likely to be laughter.
--
Marshall Rice

(Put the bin out to email me)

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:35:04 +0100, Mike Bristow
wrote:

In article ,
bigbrian wrote:
How can they do this?(and please spare me the "welcome to the
totalitarian Blair state bull****). What is the actual legal basis for
using video footage of acts committed overseas, within the EU, in a
territory where those acts are not offences, to bring charges against
people in the UK?

There are (or were) some child protection laws that did this, too. They
were designed to stop 'sex tourism'.

That's how governments get repressive legislation accepted. First go
after an unpopular group, then use the measure as some sort of
precedent to apply it to the general populace.

Look forward to:

Compulsory notification of change of address (already planned as part
of the ID card/national database package), and annual notification at
police stations.

Vetting of parents before they are allowed to conceive.

People without 'parenting certificates' banned from giving lifts to
children, entering school grounds or parks with children's play areas.

HDC tags will become hypodermic chips (obviously more comfortable and
convenient to the wearer), then extended to 'vulnerable groups' such
as 'senile' old people, the mentally incompetent, children and finally
everyone. Tracking will be constant, initially via a (compulsorily
carried) GPS mobile phone, then by embedded electronics.

I expect this will be marketed as a 'more convenient' than carrying an
ID card, which by that time will have replaced credit and debit cards
which will replace cash...

"Mike Bristow" wrote

There are (or were) some child protection laws that did this, too. They
were designed to stop 'sex tourism'.

No, that is not the case because to be prosecuted in the UK, the crime
committed in another country must be illegal in both the UK *and* that other
country. Although why sex crimes have been singled out as a special case
mystifies me.

--
Cynic

In message , Mike Bristow
writes
In article ,
bigbrian wrote:
How can they do this?(and please spare me the "welcome to the
totalitarian Blair state bull****). What is the actual legal basis for
using video footage of acts committed overseas, within the EU, in a
territory where those acts are not offences, to bring charges against
people in the UK?

There are (or were) some child protection laws that did this, too. They
were designed to stop 'sex tourism'.

I believe those laws allowed for a person to be prosecuted in the UK for
a UK offence only if the act was also an offence in the foreign
jurisdiction.

When I predicted this development (elsewhere) some people thought I was
supporting paedophiles. I suspect that was the Government's intention -
bring in a law to "protect children" to make it difficult for anyone to
speak against the principle and then, when the principle is established,
extend the law to other (smallish) groups one-by-one.

I think the law must be framed to explicitly allow charges to be brought
when the act was committed outside the UK, but IANAL.

Cheers,



--
Mike