Suffolk Constabulary has been told it has no grounds to appeal October’s Court of Appeal decision which ruled that they and not Town should cover the costs of policing roads around the ground on matchdays.

In the initial High Court hearing in July 2016 Mr Justice Green ruled that Suffolk Constabulary should have charged Town for policing two roads bordering the ground on matchdays (Portman Road and Sir Alf Ramsey Way) during the period 2008 to 2013.

The police had argued that the policing of the roads was inseparably linked to that inside the stadium and was therefore the club’s responsibility, while Town claimed the charges were unlawful.

Ruling in the police's favour, Mr Justice Green stated that the policing provided amounted to “special police services".

At June’s Court of Appeal hearing, Michael Beloff QC for Town, who said more than £500,000 was at stake in the case, argued that Mr Justice Green's assessment had been overcomplex and that he had misdirected himself on the law: “He overcomplicated what is or should be a simple issue.

“He spent so much time in examining various trees that he lost sight of the wood. A better metaphor might be that he took his eye off the ball.”

In October, three Court of Appeal judges, Lady Justice Gloster, Lord Justice Gross and Lord Briggs, agreed with Beloff and ruled in favour of Town, Lady Justice Gloster stating that the critical factor in their ruling was that the land was public rather than private.

Suffolk Constabulary subsequently applied to see whether it had grounds to appeal but Supreme Court judges have ruled that there are none as "the case doesn't raise an arguable point of law".

A Town spokesman said: "We are pleased that the matter is closed and that we continue to have a good working relationship with Suffolk police."

Suffolk police and crime commissioner Tim Passmore told BBC Suffolk: "We are disappointed with the outcome of this decision from the Supreme Court.

"We will now take some time to consider the implications for the force and once they have been fully assessed in due course we will be in a position to comment further."

It’s not yet clear whether a further court hearing will be required before the police repay Town.

Photo: Action Images

blueoxford added 06:49 - Feb 3 Whilst this is a great result for Town, as a taxpayer, these decisions in favour of football clubs sit uncomfortably with me. Football clubs make a fortune from the thousands of fans attending games and surely should pay a levy to the local police for those police officers who are required to attend the area as a result of the game being played, whether or not they are inside or outside the stadium

4

sidtheswan added 08:14 - Feb 3 Don't know why this ever went to court as Police police the public highway . Has always been that way and probably always will be !
2

Blue041273 added 08:46 - Feb 3 Agree with Blueoxford. Police presence in the area will be non-existent on non match days. To expect policing at games for free can only be at the expense of the taxpayer. While as a regular attendee at PR I appreciate the security of a police presence at games I do not expect the taxpayers who have no interest in football to fund that sense of security.
2

ArnieM added 10:20 - Feb 3 Split the costs . 50/50. Simple! 1: Town's business ( playing football matches) creates a crowd- without ITFC football matches , a crowd wouldn't exist. They have some responsibility. 2: The Suffolk Police have a duty of care and public safety and order. They will Marshall crowds at ANY large event. They have some responsibility. Where is the issue here?
1

liam88 added 10:22 - Feb 3 Police are public servants. So when there's a large amass of people they are present for safety measures to the public whether it be a protest, festival or any other large gathering of people. Do the protesters fund the policing when they decide to march? Not sure about that. Apologies if I don't make sense. Proper tired.
0

blue75 added 10:57 - Feb 3 Glad I don't live in Ipswich police costs rise so does the council tax another brilliant pr job by town. Be a nice gesture if Evans didn't take the £500000.
0

braveblue added 11:04 - Feb 3 Another £500k to group treasury. Milne will tell us its available for investment in the team!! Sad it has come to this.
0

christiand added 11:42 - Feb 3 Are any of us really surprised? The club penny pinching again. Wonderful PR for the ME brand, utter joke!
0

ChestnutSe added 12:51 - Feb 3 Just because the club is run as a business surely they should be amenable to paying for things that by law are not their responsibility. After all any other business would jump at the chance to pay £500k for something they don't have to! Whilst paying to this charitable cause I wonder if Marcus would also pay for my travel costs. After all if the game was not being played I would not have to go so surely the club should reimburse me as well. Come on Marcus you old skinflint 😁

0

bluelady added 12:52 - Feb 3 Something has to give, either Council tax goes up or our houses are at risk when we are at the game as the police cannot afford additional officers - so if they are at the game they are not having a presence elsewhere!! We get very little financial support from the Govenment, one of the lowest per head in the country so something has to give. Don't musical festivals etc have to pay for police presence? Other issue is if the police are “free” outside the ground can you imagine the club paying for many to be inside?

1

MattinLondon added 13:16 - Feb 3 I have no interest in the Royal Family but I accept that my taxes income goes to their security. If it wasn't for the football club how many local business would find it harder to survive. Police serve the public and this protection is generated by tax. Therefore protect me officer when I'm at the football
1

blueboy1981 added 15:43 - Feb 3 Suffolk Police should tell the Club where to go - Evans can afford to provide for his own needs. Crowds will drop even further if the Police presence is withdrawn - How many would be happy to take the kids to Portman Road then .... ???
0

Swn98 added 15:50 - Feb 3 Don't worry Liam 88 you usually post rubbish.
0

Swn98 added 15:52 - Feb 3 Yet another marvelous anti club post from bluebore!!!!
0

ITFCsince67 added 19:03 - Feb 3 Surely the club has to pay for policing inside and outside the ground. If there was no game the police would not need to be there. Simple. These judges are a joke. How much does the Norwich and Leeds game cost the tax payer. Sorry but the club must pay if they want the cover.
0

Blogs 295 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls