Last October CAST member Richard Hunt contacted Len Duvall (London Assembly member for Greenwich and Lewisham) with concerns about the policing of the Charlton v Millwall game at The Valley on September 13th.

Len Duvall subsequently raised the matter with Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley at a London Assembly Plenary Meeting on November 13th. Sir Mark Rowley promised to investigate and to respond in due course.

He replied to Len Duvall (now Baron Duvall of Woolwich) on February 4th. CAST has this week received permission to publish his response which is as follows:

 "Thank you for your letter of the 10th December, following up the question you raised at Policing Plenary in November, regarding the policing of the Charlton Athletic v Millwall fixture on 13 September 2025.

As you know the Met polices a significant number of football games each year. So far in the 2025/26 season we have policed 334 matches. These involve significant deployments of officers to ensure that football fans can enjoy games safely and securely. In order to do so, our 'Match Day Commanders' carefully consider plans for each match, taking into consideration a range of factors including potential criminality, the prevention of disorder, and the safe movement of large crowds within limited transport and road infrastructure.

In response to the two specific concerns, you raised:

1) Post-match routing and the decision · not to hold the visiting support

In your letter you highlight concerns that Charlton home supporters were directed on a 'circuitous' route towards Charlton Station, while the visiting Millwall supporters were permitted to depart first. The Match Commander made this decision after reviewing previous fixture plans and available options. The main goal was to keep supporter groups separated after the match, similar to the separation inside stadiums. The Commander considered holding the visiting supporters in the stadium while home supporters left, however this was assessed to be unrealistic due to a reduced train timetable. Therefore, the decision was made· to provide the two sides with alternative routes to the station to ensure that they were able to get on trains as needed without meeting. This was managed effectively with help from supporting colleagues in British Transport Police (BTP) and the train operator.

When most home supporters reached the station area, most visiting fans had already left. There were no reports of trouble outside the venue or mixing of risk groups at either Floyd Road or the station. This was a one-off decision based on that day's risk assessment. Similar steps may be used again if appropriate.

2) Consultation and communication with the club and Supporters Trust

You also raised concerns about consultation and about when and how information was shared with supporters. The club was consulted beforehand and raised observations regarding the proposed approach. However, this remained an operational decision for the match commander, and the decision was taken prior to match day. The plans went through the usual safety and approval checks before they were shared publicly. This included consultation through the Safety Advisory Group (SAG), which in football is a multi-agency advisory meeting, chaired by the local authority, that reviews safety at a stadium. Partners will include the club, blue light services and groups such as supporters associations.

During which the local authority issues the safety certificate. At the meeting, the SAG reviews compliance, matchday safety plans, any structural or management changes, emergency planning, and recent issues. They can also flag wider concerns, such as transport or crowd movement around the stadium.

Sharing detailed plans too early can give those intent on disruption time to work around them. However, we recognise the importance of being able to communicate with as many supporters as possible, and will take this as an opportunity for learning for future events. Whilst we met our main policing goal of preventing serious disorder outside the ground, we know there's still room to improve the supporter experience and our communications. Looking ahead to future matches, we'd approach similar matches with the following points in mind:

• Improving the timeliness, repetition and coordination of messaging with the club (including in stadium messaging where appropriate) and ensuring information reaches supporters through multiple channels.
• Exploring improved signposting and steward/police positioning to proactively direct supporters and reduce confusion.
• Ensuring agreed provisions for disabled supporters and those with reduced mobility are implemented consistently and without delay.
• Understanding how to reduce bottlenecks where infrastructure constraints exist.
• Review any previous reports about concerns in areas such as tactics or vehicle movements.
• Evaluate how dispersal plans had previously gone in the same ground.

In terms of whether the Met will use this tactic again, as always, it depends on the situation and level of risk. Our core priority is safety, and we'll consider local conditions, intelligence, transport plans and proportionality before making any decision. I would note that Millwall and Charlton have not played each other for a number of years due to being in different leagues, so using this dispersal method for supporters after the game for such high risk groups has not been used previously.

Our Public Order team are due to meet with Charlton Football Club next month to debrief and review our ongoing joint match response, which will feed into a wider piece of work on the policing of football matches at their ground. We welcome constructive engagement with elected representatives, clubs and supporter groups and in this case have reached out and provided an explanation to supporter groups to ensure continued trust and confidence.

Thank you for your engagement on the matter, please do not hesitate to reach out to my team."

The next couple of months will decide whether there is a Charlton v Millwall fixture at The Valley next season but at present it seems more likely than not that both clubs will still be in The Championship.

In light of that it is encouraging to hear that, although the possibility of a repeat of November's tactics is not ruled out, the decision to re-route home fans was "a one-off decision based on that day's risk assessment". The issue of the reduced train schedule from Charlton station has not been mentioned before in communications from the Police but it is clear from Sir Mark's letter that the Match Commander would have considered holding visiting supporters back if a full timetable had been in operation. If we can assume a full timetable next season there will be strong grounds for holding Millwall fans back and allowing home fans free egress.

We welcome Sir Mark's undertaking "to improve the supporter experience and our communications" as the Police performance on the day left much to be desired in terms of practicalities such as signposting, positioning, managing of bottlenecks, facilities for disabled people and clear messaging. It is all very well saying that "Sharing detailed plans too early can give those intent on disruption time to work around them" but, if similar tactics are to be deployed again next season, it is only reasonable that supporters are warned in advance so that they can make appropriate arrangements (including not attending). We note that the club also needs to sharpen its communication pre-match, during the match and afterwards.

We are pleased to learn that the Public Order Team are due to hold a debriefing with the football club but, in the light of Sir Mark's comment that "We welcome constructive engagement with elected representatives, clubs and supporter groups" we were surprised when our request to attend the debriefing was rebuffed by the Police. We have pursued this and are pleased at least to have been reassured that the outcomes of the session will be shared with us.