Page 310 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

deep antipathy between the two groups. The supporters of Wrexham had travelled back from
a game at Chesterfield and had alighted at the station in Chester. The applicants were
drinking in a public house and had been warned by the police not to leave the public house
when the police became aware that the Wrexham group were at the station. However, the
group did leave the public house and went across the road to the station with the intention of
fighting with the group from Wrexham. There was an element of pre-meditation about the
incident because the group left the public house as the group of Wrexham supporters arrived
at the station and attempted to leave the station. The group from Chester did not enter the
station because the groups were kept apart by police officers. The actions of the Chester
group were caught on CCTV, they were heard responding to the taunts of the Wrexham
group and began singing loud and abusive songs. Members of the public, employees at the
station and the police officers felt threatened by their actions.
PART 5 © SWEET & MAXWELL
63,
Simon Cordell’s Skeleton Argument (2) Pdf
Page:310
R. v DEAN BONES AND OTHERS
The applicants all played different roles in the incident, some having substantially more
involvement than others and, on the prosecution’s case, some of the defendants, particularly
Wood and Schofield, were the ringleaders and orchestrated the threats of violence. The
CCTV evidence was the basis of the prosecution case against the applicants.”
- We have watched the CCTV evidence.
- All of the appellants were of good character other than Schofield and Bruce. Schofield
had a previous conviction for affray as well as other offences. Bruce had one relevant
previous conviction in 2004 for being drunk and disorderly. The authors of the various pre-
sentence reports recommended non-custodial sentences given the low risk of reoffending. As
the judge said in passing sentence all of the defendants other than Schofield had expressed
remorse. Some of the appellants had good character references, including Bruce.
- In passing sentence, the judge said that the defendants had deliberately left the public
house with the intention of fighting the group from Wrexham. There could be no other
sensible explanation as to what happened that day and it was clearly shown on the video. He
said that the people of Chester and visitors to the city had to know that the courts would take
a firm stand against this type of criminal behaviour. In addition, the evidence at Schofield’s
trial indicated that the numbers of the younger element in the football hooligans in Chester
had grown significantly over the last two years and that was an issue that could not be
ignored. The courts would not tolerate such behaviour and a message had to be sent out to
people like them that such behaviour would not be tolerated. All bar Schofield had pleaded
guilty and they would receive credit for those pleas. Wood was the most prominent of the
protagonists. He threw a bottle at the police and he had a bad record for offences of violence,
including one for an offence very similar to this. Schofield was not only the oldest of the
defendants, but he also directed others. He was not shown outwardly playing an active role,
but by his mere presence he made sure that others were there. He was seen shouting and on a
number of occasions had clearly instructed others to do things and they had followed his lead
and instructions. He was the controlling mind behind what was going on. He also had a
previous conviction for a very similar offence. The others had all expressed their remorse and
had acted out of character.
- ASBOs
- The power to make an ASBO was introduced by s. 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998 (CDA 1998) which came into force on April 1, 1999. In McCann v Manchester Crown
Court [2002} UKHL 39; [2003] 1 A.C. 787; [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. 27 (p.419) Lord Sleyn