PYROTECHNICS were last night branded “offensive weapons” and football supporters who set them off at matches warned they could face prosecution as well as civil litigation if someone suffers an injury as a result of their “criminal act”.

The use of flares, smoke bombs, strobes and rockets has increased at games across the country this season and has led to calls from Police Scotland, PFA Scotland, Asthma and Lung UK Scotland as well as MSPs for greater action to be taken by clubs and the football authorities.

A nine-year-old Celtic supporter was hospitalised after being struck by a flare that was thrown by one of their fellow fans at the Champions League group game against defending champions Real Madrid at Parkhead back in September.

Aberdeen player Ryan Duncan was nearly hit by a smoke bomb thrown from the stands by one of the Pittodrie club’s own fans after his team mate Duk opened the scoring in the cinch Premiership match against Dundee United at Tannadice on Saturday evening.

There was a strobe display in the away end at half-time in the Hibernian league game against Rangers at Easter Road on Wednesday night and police revealed yesterday that two boys aged 13 and 14 had been charged in connection with objects being thrown onto the pitch.

READ MORE: Fans using 'private areas' and child 'mules' to get pyro into games

A spokesman confirmed that enquiries are also ongoing about the use of pyrotechnics in the crowd.  

James Dornan, the SNP MSP for Glasgow Cathcart, last week stated that he would like to see the power to award stadium safety certificates taken away from local councils and given to the Scottish government so that more pressure can be applied to clubs to stamp out the growing problem. 

David Wilson, a personal injury solicitor and partner at Digby Brown Glasgow, believes that clubs can not be held legally responsible for the criminal behaviour of a small number of fans in a crowd providing they have put all the necessary safety measures in place before kick-off. 

However, Wilson, who has helped victims of the Glasgow Bin Lorry tragedy, Lanarkshire bus crash and Stockline plastics disaster, feels a supporter who causes an injury could feel the full force of the law.  

“What people need to remember is that a pyrotechnic is an explosive and so therefore the careless deployment of an explosive in a crowded area is extremely dangerous,” he said. 

“It is more than foreseeable that people could be injured or killed as a result. In 1994 a 67-year-old Welsh fan was killed by a marine flare that had been recklessly deployed.

“A football club, in terms of the Occupiers’ Liability (Scotland) Act 1960, has a duty to take reasonable care to protect persons on their premises.

Glasgow Times:

“But beyond taking reasonable care to ensure appropriate stewarding and carrying out appropriate security checks, I would not consider that a club is likely to be held responsible for the careless and rash actions of somebody who has attended a football match. He is not their direct responsibility.

“At the end of the day, you would have to show that the injury is a direct consequence of the club’s failure to take reasonable care in the protection of persons attending their matches and that it was foreseeable that someone would be injured as a result of this failure.

“There have been cases where a football club was considered liable. Football fans were injured when forcing a gate at Arbroath that had not been properly maintained.

“But it would very difficult where somebody has carried out a criminal act and the club has made it very clear that such criminal acts are not condoned and reasonable security measures have been taken to ensure offensive weapons, and a pyrotechnic is an offensive weapon, are either not taken in or deployed.

READ MORE: Jim Goodwin calls for action after smoke bomb misses Aberdeen player

“But the test would be one of reasonable care. If the club has done what would be reasonably expected of a club in stewarding the match and taking the appropriate precautions against such acts, I can’t see a situation where the club would be held responsible.”

Wilson added: “Someone who was injured as the result of a reckless act which could be considered effectively an assault, might have recourse to the Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme. If somebody has been significantly injured as the result of a crime of violence then they can make an application

“Is the individual who sets off the pyrotechnic which causes the injury liable? Absolutely. There are plenty of instances where people who have committed criminal acts have been sued in civil liability. It has happened to footballers who have carried out sexual assaults. The David Goodwillie case is an example.

“Every football fan should be aware of the high level of CCTV being used in football grounds. The review of CCTV would be the first thing that any lawyer would request. And the police as well because it is a criminal act.”