Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Town Wait on High Court Ruling
Friday, 10th Jun 2016 14:45

The High Court reserved judgement at the conclusion of the two-day hearing into Town’s claim that Suffolk Constabulary unlawfully charged them for policing costs in the roads surrounding their Portman Road stadium on match days between 2008 and 2013. The Blues are suing for more than £200,000.

Mr Justice Green is now considering the evidence and is expected to make his decision within the next couple of weeks.

Suffolk Constabulary argue that the policing of closed roads such as Portman Road and Sir Alf Ramsey Way is inseparably linked to that inside the stadium and is therefore the club’s responsibility.

On Wednesday, Nick De Marco, for Town, told the court that the club "has been and currently is being charged by the police for ordinary policing on the public highway".

He continued: "This is unlawful as the police may not charge for discharging their normal policing duties.”

In 2012 the High Court ruled that West Yorkshire Police had overcharged Leeds United for "special police services" between 2009 and 2012, the Whites having argued that policing the roads and car parks around Elland Road is not their responsibility.

As a result of that ruling, Town were amongst a number of clubs to take similar action to reclaim cash previously paid - plus interest - for policing around stadia on match days. The Blues were charged from £5,926 to £25,242 per fixture.

But Dijen Basu QC, for Suffolk Constabulary, said there is a difference between the situations at Town and Leeds with match days in and around Portman Road "very peaceful indeed".

"That is a key distinction between the present case and that of Leeds United, whose fans have a very bad reputation for disorder," he added.

Suffolk Constabulary has subsequently issued a counterclaim against Town for more than £96,000 in unpaid invoices.


Photo: Action Images



Please report offensive, libellous or inappropriate posts by using the links provided.



BLUEBEAT added 14:56 - Jun 10
Isn't that a weird comment for Suffolk Constabulary QC to make? If anything, it suggests they shouldn't have charged ITFC for police work outside the ground?
4

hoppy added 15:27 - Jun 10
Is it the club that close the roads, or is that linked to the policing of the area?
1

Fatboy added 16:08 - Jun 10
@Bluebeat: That's exactly what I thought at first.

However, I guess their argument is that all of their costs outside the stadium relate to policing the matches, i.e. general crowd control that is required whenever several thousand people congregate, rather than policing public disorder, e.g. dealing with fighting/drunken behaviour etc.
1

Dissboyitfc added 07:16 - Jun 12
With all the trouble just recently in France and at wembley stadium, it really hammers home the importance of a police presence. Football has in the main been a lot safer. The extra crowds and traffic is down to the fact a football match is being played.

We are paying enough for a poor product, paying over the top for food and refreshments, Surely not too much to ask for to keep the area as safe and as problem free as possible. Does M.E not realise if people stay away amid safety concerns it will cost him more than paying the police.

Marcus is not the right person for this club! Did the Cobbolds or Sheepshanks ever Behave like this?
3

carsey added 08:19 - Jun 13
Would all those people be there if there was no football match being played? Answer No.
Do the local police have unlimited funds to pay overtime. Answer No. They take officers from normal duties around the county which affects the poor cover already in place.
My view ITFC should pay or apply for street closures and police it themselves.
2


You need to login in order to post your comments

Blogs 295 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls

About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2024