A FOOTBALL fans campaign group has accused prosecutors of "vindictive behaviour" after a sheriff threw out the case against nine Celtic supporters accused of hanging effigies of Rangers fans at an Old Firm match.
Sheriff Allan Findlay criticised prosecutors for not giving defence lawyers "full disclosure" of available evidence against the fans who were charged following the match in September 2016.
The accusations centred on 'mock execution' effigies and a banner hung at the game which Celtic won 5-1 and were said to be “threatening and offensive”.
A banner which stretched over the crowd read out:”Know your place h*n scum.
The hanging of effigies within Parkhead with one depicting a Rangers fan, was deemed "inappropriate behaviour" according to an official response to fans complaints to the First Minister at the time.
The case was originally raised as an Offensive Behaviour at Football Act and was altered to another charge of behaving in a threatening or abusive manner.
In March, MSPs voted to repeal Scotland's controversial Offensive Behaviour at Football Act brought in in 2011 in a bid to crack down on sectarianism.
Ross Brady, 29, Kieran Carvill, 19, Andrew McDonald, 24, Kasey McKinnon, 19, Martin Gallagher, 27, Mark Macdonald, 24, Lewis McLachlan, 20, Myles McSwegan, 18 and Michael Bentley, 28, were due to stand trial at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Tuesday.
But the sheriff quashed the case after hearing that the Crown after two years gave defence lawyers disclosed an edited version of what they felt was relevant in the case.
The sheriff said: “In my view the appropriate remedy here is to desert the case and desert it pro loco et tempore.
“If the Crown wish to consider re-raising it with the criticism I have made of disclosure, it is a matter for them.”
READ MORE: 'Mock execution' effigies at Old Firm game were "inappropriate", says Scottish Government
The Fans Against Criminalisation group which campaigned for the repeal of the Act were fiercely critical of the prosecution.
They said: "Another nine boys had their charges thrown out today after two years since the 'incident' and six months since the OB Act (original charge) was repealed.
"The sheriff questioned the procurator fiscal closely about the fact that evidence was not disclosed to all the defence solicitors.
"The defence solicitors for the nine variously called the decision 'by design'; the disclosed evidence 'mosaic' and said the police were 'unaccountable' and that this was a threat to the public interest.
"So as we work through the 65 outstanding OBFA charges from April we see charges prosecuted till the very last minute then being dropped or the Sheriff drops them. Scandalous politicisation of the PSoS (Police Service of Scotland) and the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service.
"Vindictive behaviour towards young fans and all because football fans got the Act repealed."
A Crown Office spokesman said: “We note the decision of the court.”
The hanging blow up dolls adorned with Rangers scarves could be seen at the start of the live TV coverage of the match as the players took to the pitch.
Rival fans have disputed the significance of the stunt with some suggesting it was making reference to Rangers FC liquidation in 2012, but others emphasised that they were mock executions.
It also came just days after former Rangers star Kris Boyd spoke out about his brother Scott taking his own life.
Others pointed out it coincided with World Suicide Prevention Day.
The OBFA legislation has deeply divided opinion from the start, with those who supported it said it was needed to fight the scourge of sectarianism within Scottish football.
But opponents said the law treats football fans as "second class citizens", and is not needed as police and the courts already had sufficient powers to deal with offensive behaviour.
They also claimed that the law is badly worded, and therefore open to different interpretations of what is and is not "offensive behaviour".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel