Lambrini - with a Buckie Chaser

Carnybull gives his views on the current problems facing the Hereford United chairman.

Graham Turner has endured a week under virtual siege from authority, with both the Council and West Mercia Police pursuing the Club over, respectively, ground capacity and vicinity policing charges.

The dulcet tones of the Meadow End faithful shore-up Hereford's efforts on the pitch, but a survey of the Meadow End itself will determine if it is built on solid foundations or upon a bank of shale. If the latter, expect a visit from Health and Safety and the imposition of further restrictions on a ground capacity edging ever-closer to the minimum League Two requirement.

As if the Health and Safety threat to Graham Turner's carefully-laid business plans were not enough, last week saw the re-emergence of West Mercia Police demands for 'vicinity' policing charges. Last season, Police invoiced £16,000 for one Swindon Town game alone. The extent of their present demands are not known, but Graham Turner stoutly resisted all efforts to date to make the Club pay for policing which takes place outside the property owned, leased or operated by the Club on matchdays. This resolute stance by a financial minnow gained a massive boost from Wigan Athletic's recent victory in the Court of Appeal over similar policing charges.

If West Mercia Police sue for vicinity charges, on the present case law the Club stands a good chance of success in the Courts, but there is always the risk of an appeal and a drawn out legal process costing hundreds of thousands of pounds. Turner needs to be absolutely sure of his legal standing in resisting the demands of the Police because the Club may be held liable for both sides' costs if he loses. He has retained a major player in commercial law - Wragg & Co of Birmingham - perhaps having long associations with the firm during his stewardship of several league clubs. This is his prerogative; but he always has the option of hiring counsel directly under the new Public Access Scheme.

There are actually two potential legal actions in prospect. Firstly, West Mercia Police may try to sue the Club in contract for the vicinity charges. In response, one would fully expect Graham Turner to pay into Court any outstanding policing charges directly related to Edgar Street matches; contesting the remainder on the grounds that there was never any agreement or customary requirement between the parties for additional charges.

Secondly, and more worryingly, Hereford themselves might have to initiate Court action if the Council move to restrict or curtial match day activities after a risk assessment (perhaps in tandem with a re-appraisal of ground safety?) following West Mercia Police advice that they would no longer provide 'vicinity policing' because of unpaid bills.

The close proximity of the Council's pre-season interest in Health and Safety at Edgar Street with the revival of the Police pursuit of vicinity charges does lead one to question if the two issues could be related. But what are the grounds to suppose the Council - a potential benefactor to Hereford United - would act in such a manner?

Both the Council and West Midlands Police have recent 'form' for joint interference with public entertainment, as witnessed by their last-minute approaches to The Barrels, using the Licensing Act 2003, against a Smash EDO film night. If the police fail to extract vicinity charges from the Club, no doubt they will ask for a rise in the Police Precept from Council Tax to cover the shortfall. A rise in tax is, invariably, unpopular with the electorate and such a scenario would concentrate the minds of local politicians in the run-up to the next election.

So there is a possiblity the Council would act and the Club, in turn, would be forced into legal action. This would take the form of a judicial review in the High Court and rely on wholly-different - and far less certain - arguments than could be deployed against an action for payment by the Police. For instance; that they should not suffer because any risk to public safety stemmed from the pursuit of unwarranted invoices; thus the Council's action originated in a 'base cause' (ex turpi causa non oritur actio) and must be declared unlawful. To add urgency and expense, the Club might need to apply for an immediate injunction prior to a full hearing so as to protect their fixture list. Meanwhile, the Police would not incur the expense or risk of an action in contract whilst the common law was against them unless one of the parties, or the Court itself, joined them to the action.

Does this apparent Health and Safety and vicinity charge double-whammy have all the appearance and gentility of a pincer movement?

---