Gambling: Paddy Power wins betting licence refusal appeal

Paddy Power has been successful in its appeal over Newham Council's refusal to issue a betting premises licence at 297 Green Lane, Upton Park, Hackney.  The decision (although not binding) will no doubt have repercussions with regards allowing the floodgates to remain open for new betting premises licence applications throughout England, Scotland and Wales.

Newham argued that the primary gambling activity (PGA) was not traditional over the counter betting but the use of gaming machines.  Further it was argued that the proposed Paddy Power branch would attract crime and anti-social behaviour and so would be in breach of the Gambling Act 2005 and further that the application would also be contrary to the licensing objective relating to safeguarding children.

With regards PGA Newham’s argument was that it was open to the Licensing Authority (LA) to consider PGA on an application for a premises licence.  However DJ Goldspring held that “I believe the concept to fall outside the remit of the LA and squarely with the Gambling Commission (GC).  If such a significant concept as primary activity existed on the face of the Act, then one would have expected Parliament to make that clear.  And in turn, it would have made clear who the appropriate enforcing body of that concept is.

Therefore the LA is not entitled to circumvent the split regulatory roles of the GC and the LA or the statutory intention of parliament and CANNOT therefore take account of PGA when considering a premises licence application.”

Newham conceded that if the Licensing Authority could take account of Primary Activity, they fell into error in their interpretation of it and therefore were wrong to refuse the licence on that ground.

Newham also conceded the safeguarding issue which led the appeal to turn solely on the issue of crime and disorder.  In the conclusion of his judgment, DJ Goldspring said: "It has not been proved that the granting of the licence would not be reasonably consistent with [the] objective of preventing crime and disorder and therefore I disagree with the decision of the [council's] sub-committee and, in light of the evidence before me, it was wrong.

Evidence produced on behalf of Newham “providing an overview of crime and anti-social behaviour from CRIS AND CAD report” was described as “flawed and short of a proper analysis”.

Significance was placed on the fact that the police had agreed conditions and did not object.  “One would have thought, that if the concerns of the LA were evidenced and well founded, the police would have said so and objected both then and now.”

In an announcement, Newham Council stated that they are "deeply disappointed" and will explore whether there is scope for "judicial review".  The ruling itself is not binding on any other court or local authority and was determined solely on the merits of the case.