Isotta Reichenbach has successfully resisted an application by the prosecution to impose a Football Banning Order on her client. Her client had pleaded guilty to possession of a class A drug and holding a lit flare at Wembley Stadium during the 2025 FA cup final. These are ‘relevant offences’ under the FSA 1989 and in such cases an FBO is usually always sought by both police and the CPS and often granted.
Up until 2022, to impose an FBO, the court had to be satisfied that there were ‘reasonable grounds to believe that the making of a banning order would help prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches’. Under the old test, it would have been unlikely that Isotta’s client would have received an FBO. This was his first conviction, and he had taken significant steps to demonstrate his contrition to the courts.
However, in 2022 the law changed. The court now “must impose an FBO …unless it “considers that there are particular circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which would make it unjust in all the circumstances to do so” (section 14A FSA 1989). This created a presumption, and courts are now increasingly unlikely to refuse an application. For example, between August 2023 and 2024 there was a 34% increase in orders imposed (Home Office data, 2025).
In the instant case, Isotta, in collaboration with Robert Perkins of Football Law Associates, considered how best to demonstrate to the court that the imposition of an FBO was both unnecessary and unjust. This involved collating references for the client, an apology letter, and presenting a detailed skeleton in response to the application. One of the key challenges in resisting an FBO is that most case law originates prior to the change in law. However, what Isotta and Robert sought to do was convince the court that the purpose of an FBO has remained the same, as has the mischief the 1989 Act has sought to catch. Older case law could be a useful guide in proving that a defendant is clearly suitable or unsuitable for an FBO.
Following submissions, the District Judge ruled that the client was not suitable for an FBO, noting particularly the steps he had taken in addressing his offending behaviour, including but not limited to voluntarily taking a drugs awareness course. The District Judge also noted that FBO’s are often granted without proper consideration. The decision not to grant an order marked a clarity in understanding of the purpose and necessity of imposing an FBO in a developing, and often misunderstood area of football law.
Isotta was instructed by Robert Perkins of Football Law Associates.