Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
[2] The matter came before me for debate on 26 April 2013. The issue to be debated (as it emerged in the course of submissions) was whether on the basis of certain conceded facts the alleged behaviour of the accused could properly be regarded as being "in relation to a regulated football match". Put shortly, the accused submitted that while the behaviour libelled might be said to be "related to football", it was not related to any particular regulated football match. Accordingly, the accused sought dismissal of the statutory alternative in the first charge.
CONTRARY to the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, Section 1(1)
on 10 March 2012 at Glasgow Central Railway Station, Glasgow you ANDREW ALAN BLANCE, ALEXANDER GEORGE COCKBURN, WARNER KING EASTON, RYAN DAVID LOW, CHARLES DAVID RAYNES and LEON WILLIAM WALKER did conduct yourselves in a disorderly manner, form part of a disorderly crowd, fight, gesticulate, throw missiles, challenge the lieges to fight, place the lieges in a state of fear and alarm and commit a breach of the peace".
[4] A separate statutory offence is libelled against the fourth accused, the terms of which were not relevant to the issues in the debate.
[5] Sections 1 & 2 of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 ("the 2012 Act"), so far as material, provide as follows:-
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.