FAB Supporter Conduct and Restorative Justice Sub-Group meeting one Date: 15 October 2025 Location: Virtual
On 15 October 2025, West Ham United held the first of the FAB sub-group meetings on Supporter Conduct and Restorative Justice.
Fan Representatives:
Andy Payne, Hammers United and FAB Co-Chair
Cathy Bayford, Disabled Supporters Association
James Brown, Claret Members
Mike Field, Old School Hammers
Kevin Hind, West Ham United Supporters Trust
Chris Wheal, West Ham United Supporters Trust
Apu Vyas, Inclusive Irons
Andrew McConnell, Hammers United
Mark Inskipp, West Ham United Supporters Trust
Club Representatives:
Catherine Smith, Head of Supporter Services and Fan Engagement
Ben Illingworth, Head of Operations
Darryl Morgan, Safety and Operations
Shelley Warren, Supporter Services Manager
Kerry O’Shea, Fan Engagement Lead
Apologies:
Maurice Birnbaum, Away Scheme Members
Bradley Donovan, Disabled Supporters Association
Jo Bailey, Pride of Irons
Agenda:
Welcome and introduction
Vote for Co-Chair / Vice-Chair
Background and context to sanctions and banning approach at West Ham United
Feedback from Supporters and understanding of objectives
Introduction to Club sanction and banning policy and work delivered to date
Update on FA Action Plan and feedback from supporters
AOB
Vote for Co-Chair and Vice-Chair
Following a vote by Supporter Representatives, James Brown was elected as Co-Chair of the Supporter Conduct and Restorative Justice sub-group, and Mike Field elected as Vice-Chair. The Club would like to acknowledge their commitment and look forward to continuing to work with them.
Background and context to sanctions and banning approach at West Ham United
The Club started the meeting by outlining the broad approach that the Club take for sanctions and bans, which ultimately is to ensure the 62,500 people visiting the stadium arrive safely, watch a game of football, and get home safely. The Club said that West Ham United fans were some of the best in the Premier League and noted that it was an extremely small percentage of people, or incidents, where the Club or the police are reluctantly forced to take action. The Club reiterated that action would be taken to prevent individuals coming to the Stadium when the law, Ground Regulations or Ticketing T&Cs had been breached to ensure that the Club’s fans were safe when attending the stadium.
Feedback from supporters
Supporter Representatives stated that through this sub-group they were seeking to understand what the rules and processes were for banning decisions and appeals
Supporter Representatives also emphasised they were supportive of giving supporters second chances through restorative justice programs, such as the work done by Pride of Irons to educate fans on the impact of homophobic abuse. The Club agreed they were also supportive of restorative justice programmes and worked with Kick It Out to deliver education sessions where possible
Introduction to Club sanction and banning policy and work delivered to date
The Club shared information on internal work that had been done over the course of the 2024/25 season to audit the Club’s sanctions and banning process. This included benchmarking against other club policies and processes as well as taking learnings from Kick It Out and the Independent Football Ombudsman.
The Club shared how some clubs published details of how many supporters were banned and asked for the views of the Working Group on this. It was noted that other clubs such as Brentford did this in a positive way. Supporter Representatives broadly agreed with publication of this information and felt the fanbase would welcome transparency. They noted, however, that it should be done in a way which could be compared easily to other clubs, such as by measuring it as incidents per 100,000 supporters. It was agreed also that there would be a level of subjectivity in reading the results – as low numbers could either be viewed positively or critically – and that different police forces might have different approaches.
Supporter Representatives queried if the majority of arrests of West Ham United supporters took place at away games. The Club stated that again the majority of travelling West Ham United fans were fantastic and received glowing reports from other clubs, but that again a small minority didn’t meet these expectations. The Club also noted that sometimes there were particular police operations at matches which may lead to increased arrests.
The Club then outlined its general banning and sanctions process which is publicised in the Supporter Conduct Charter. The stages of the process include, but are not limited to, receiving a report, investigation and evidence gathering, decision making and communication, appeal process and returning to football following a ban, including signing an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement. The Club clarified where a police investigation was taking place, any Club investigation would be paused, and any associated ticketing accounts would be suspended pending the outcome of the police investigation.
Supporter Representatives shared concern that supporters might be banned from attending fixtures before they are found guilty of anything. The Club explained that the suspension of the ticketing account was an interim suspension whilst either a police or Club investigation was undertaken to ensure the safety of all supporters.
The Club advised that if supporters felt they had received a sanction or ban unfairly, they could raise this with the Independent Football Ombudsman and that three cases had been escalated in this way last season. Supporter Representatives asked if supporters had access to the evidence used to determine a sanction or ban. They raised concerns that if supporters did not have access to this evidence before their ban was issued, they would not have the opportunity to respond to the direct accusations made against them. Supporter Representatives felt that this may prevent supporters from having a fair trial and from being ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
Supporter Representatives also commented that supporters might not be aware they had broken the rules until they received a ban from the Club and stated that it would be better if the fan was notified that they were being investigated, were provided with the evidence, then were able to provide a response to the Club.
The Club noted this feedback, clarifying that while the Club generally did not share evidence with supporters as part of this process, any banning letters did contain reference to the evidence that had been relied upon and such evidence would be shared in full with the independent adjudicator if the supporter wished to appeal. The Club did however agree to consider the evidence sharing approach ahead of the next sub-group meeting.
The Club did share that based on the appeals received last season, supporters were normally very aware they had committed an offence or a breach of the ground regulations. The Club also highlighted a supporter had the opportunity to share any evidence themselves, or mitigating circumstances as part of the appeal process. The Club also highlighted that if any evidence was to be shared, it would need to be able to protect anyone who has reported activity to the Club or police.
Supporter Representatives suggested the Club consider an ACAS-style employment tribunal-style process for sanction and bans. The Club felt this may be disproportionate to the size of bans issued, and suggested Supporter Representatives consider FSA best practice as a starting point as it was specific to football. It was agreed this would be shared with Supporter Representatives after the meeting.
Supporter Representatives asked if a supporter who had been cleared by police or had a trial dropped mid-way through the investigation process would automatically be allowed back to matches. The Club said that every allegation was investigated and considered on a case-by-case basis. The Club emphasised that it was a private organisation, and through adhering to the Ground Regulations and Ticketing T&C’s, the Club was able to make its own decisions about appropriate sanctions and bans. The Club also clarified that following a Football Banning Order, the Club still reserved the right to ban a supporter for a longer period of time.
Supporter Representatives highlighted that there were cases where they had been away fans in the home end at London Stadium, and this could provoke supporters into a reaction. The Club noted that action was taken to prevent away fans from entering the home end, and the banning of suspicious ticket accounts, but acknowledged across the league, it was a challenge to prevent all away fans from entering home areas. The Club reminded supporters that instead of taking any action themselves, they should use the text support line or inform a steward so appropriate action can be taken in a safe manner for all supporters.
The Club agreed this sub-group would be a useful tool for sense checking the processes that exist and are contained with the Supporter Conduct Charter.
Agreed Actions:
The Club to consider how CCTV or other evidence could or should be shared with supporters as part of the banning or appeals process. (Due: before next FAB meeting)
The Club to share the benchmarking of other Premier League clubs banning and sanctions processes. (Due: November 2025)
The Club to consider how publication of banning and sanctions data could work ahead of the next sub-group. (Due: before next FAB meeting)
Supporter Representatives to review FSA guidance on banning and sanctions (Due: November 2025).