Paddy Power wins appeal over refusal by council of betting shop licence
Betting company Paddy Power has won an appeal over a London borough’s decision to refuse an operating licence for a new shop on the grounds that it would attract crime and disorder.
Newham Council had also rejected the licence for the premises in Upton Park on the basis that the primary profits would come from fixed odds betting terminals.
Three issues were initially identified by Gerald Gouriet QC of Francis Taylor Building, Paddy Power's barrister, in the appeal:
- Whether Newham was right to refuse on the grounds that the application would be contrary to the licensing objective relating to crime and disorder;
- Whether Primary Activity was available to the local authority as a ground for refusal and if so, was it applied correctly; and
- Whether Newham was right to refuse on the grounds that the application would be contrary to the licensing objective relating to safeguarding children.
However, the council conceded on the safeguarding issue before the hearing.
Newham also conceded – during the hearing – that if it could take account of Primary Activity, it fell into error in its interpretation and was therefore wrong to refuse the licence on that ground.
District Judge Goldspring heard the case over three days at Thames Magistrates’ Court and has now ruled in Paddy Power’s favour on the crime and disorder issue.
The judge said: “On the evidence presented to me on this appeal it has not been proved that the granting of the licence would not be reasonably consistent with the objective of preventing crime and disorder….Therefore I disagree with the decision of the sub-committee and in light of the evidence before me (in this appeal) it was wrong.”
He therefore granted the licence on the same terms as initially agreed with the police.
On the issue of Primary Activity, District Judge Goldspring said: “For my part (this appeal does not turn on this point) I believe the concept to fall outside the remit of the local authority and squarely with the Gambling Commission.
“If such a significant concept as primary activity existed on the fact 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.”
The judge suggested a local authority was not entitled to circumvent the split regulatory roles of the Gambling Commission and the local authority or the statutory intention of Parliament, and could not therefore take account of Primary Activity when considering a premises licensing application.
A spokesman for Paddy Power said: “We welcome the fact that the confusion surrounding Primary Activity has been clarified with Newham conceding during the proceedings that the 2005 Gambling Act relates only to whether an operator provides genuine facilities for betting.”
He highlighted the challenges faced by UK high streets and insisted that the company’s retail presence added “much needed vitality and footfall to localities around the country as well as vital employment”.
The spokesman also said the company was committed to maintaining a close working relationship and open dialogue with all councils. It has donated all costs awarded to the company to charities in the Newham area.
Cllr Ian Corbett, Newham’s executive member for environment, said: “We are disappointed and will decide what happens next. The law needs to be changed so that our residents do not have to suffer anti-social behaviour connected to betting shops.”