Can throwing a cotton scarf at a football match really lead to a criminal prosecution and a subsequent criminal record? A recent Bindmans case illustrates a concerning trend of laws originally designed to prevent football-related violence, being used to pursue low-level, non-violent conduct.

Kiya was recently instructed to defend a client facing prosecution under Section 2 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991, namely throwing a missile. After six months and relentless escalation, the case was discontinued. The allegation concerned our client throwing a scarf forward; no consequent disturbance or public disorder was alleged. After obtaining our client’s details at the end of the match, the police proceeded to immediately charge him via a letter in the post.

We sent a number of detailed written representations to the CPS, arguing that the case does not meet the Full Code Test (evidential and public interest considerations). The client was of good character, and a conviction would have a disproportionate effect on him and his employment.

The CPS is notoriously resistant to offering no evidence or discontinuing cases involving football offences. With support from our client’s local MP, the over-stretching of the legislation was raised with the Home Office. The below table, which is publicly available, illustrates how uncommon it is for a prosecution to not result in a conviction:   

Year ending	Prosecutions	Convictions
June 2020	37	32
June 2021	7	7
June 2022	81	75
June 2023	114	103
June 2024	118	113

After six months and six court hearings, and ongoing resistance from the CPS, we issued a letter before claim to formally put CPS on notice that court proceedings might be brought against them by way of judicial review on a total of six grounds. One of the central arguments was that, in accordance with the principles of statutory interpretation, a scarf cannot reasonably constitute a ‘missile.’ Disclosure of any commercial relationships between the police and football clubs was also requested.

Shortly after, the case was discontinued.

The client was represented by Kiya Mazur of Bindmans and counsel Tayyiba Bajwa of Doughty Street Chambers.