Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Metrobet Judgement in Full and my Opinion on the Mistakes Made
Attached is the magistrates' full 2-page judgement on the Metrobet case. (Sorry, for some reason it's a bit of big file and it takes a little while to download).
What seems to have been given particular weight is:
- the apparent reliability of Metrobet
- certain phrasing in the law
- the evidence given by the expert witness called by Metrobet.
Here's why I think that Haringey Council and the brief they employed made significant mistakes on the way the case was handled.
1. The apparent reliability of Metrobet - the judgement concludes that the crime issue won't be a problem because Metrobet are reliable and well-managed.
I provided the Council and the brief with photographic evidence proving that Metrobet's claims relating to critical disorder prevention measures made in the court of the previous day were untrue. Not only would this have shown a specific claim was false, it could also have raised a much wider doubt about their other claims.
The decision was made not to use this evidence.
2. Certain phrasing in the law
At the start of the judgement, the magistrates explain that the starting point of their judgement was the phrase the licensing authority shall "aim to permit" the use of premises.
I provided the council with written evidence form the nation's top legal expert on the Gambling Act (and who was responsible for training many of the magistrates) which provides a clear argument throwing significant doubt on the precise legal meaning of this phrase - in essence it casts significant doubt on the meaning of this phrase and dislodges assumptions in favour of licence applicants. (It's quite an esoteric legal argument, but given its source, I believe it is very credible and powerful).
The Council and their brief chose not to use this.
So evidence was available to counter two of the main points on which the judgement was based and the Council chose not to use it.
3. There was also the expert witness - perhaps the hardest one to handle - Professor Griffiths has spent years writing and speaking on how higher availability of gambling leads to more gambling. He's recently changed his mind and says it doesn't any more. Coincidentally I was told that he was paid £20,000 by Metrobet.
Easy for me to say perhaps, but I believe the Council's brief could have done a much better job on pointing out this guy's lack of credibility.
I have grave doubts about the Council’s willingness to appeal this, but I believe there are grounds. If they don’t appeal I will expect a clear explanation about why including why the evidence I provided them was not used when it was clearly very relevant to key judgement issues.
If you think that the Council should appeal, write to your councillors and let them know. Only this type of sustianed support and pressure will make a difference.
What seems to have been given particular weight is:
- the apparent reliability of Metrobet
- certain phrasing in the law
- the evidence given by the expert witness called by Metrobet.
Here's why I think that Haringey Council and the brief they employed made significant mistakes on the way the case was handled.
1. The apparent reliability of Metrobet - the judgement concludes that the crime issue won't be a problem because Metrobet are reliable and well-managed.
I provided the Council and the brief with photographic evidence proving that Metrobet's claims relating to critical disorder prevention measures made in the court of the previous day were untrue. Not only would this have shown a specific claim was false, it could also have raised a much wider doubt about their other claims.
The decision was made not to use this evidence.
2. Certain phrasing in the law
At the start of the judgement, the magistrates explain that the starting point of their judgement was the phrase the licensing authority shall "aim to permit" the use of premises.
I provided the council with written evidence form the nation's top legal expert on the Gambling Act (and who was responsible for training many of the magistrates) which provides a clear argument throwing significant doubt on the precise legal meaning of this phrase - in essence it casts significant doubt on the meaning of this phrase and dislodges assumptions in favour of licence applicants. (It's quite an esoteric legal argument, but given its source, I believe it is very credible and powerful).
The Council and their brief chose not to use this.
So evidence was available to counter two of the main points on which the judgement was based and the Council chose not to use it.
3. There was also the expert witness - perhaps the hardest one to handle - Professor Griffiths has spent years writing and speaking on how higher availability of gambling leads to more gambling. He's recently changed his mind and says it doesn't any more. Coincidentally I was told that he was paid £20,000 by Metrobet.
Easy for me to say perhaps, but I believe the Council's brief could have done a much better job on pointing out this guy's lack of credibility.
I have grave doubts about the Council’s willingness to appeal this, but I believe there are grounds. If they don’t appeal I will expect a clear explanation about why including why the evidence I provided them was not used when it was clearly very relevant to key judgement issues.
If you think that the Council should appeal, write to your councillors and let them know. Only this type of sustianed support and pressure will make a difference.
Tags for Forum Posts: betting shops, gambling, green lanes, metrobet
- Attachments:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
I have written my response,
Dear Councillors,
I am writing to ask you to request that the Council appeal the decision by magistrates in favour of Metrobet. Having seen the judgement, it is clear that there are concerns about the way the case was handled and that evidence that could have undermined Metrobet's case was not used.
I feel sure that I can rely upon your support in wishing to preserve a good mix of shops and amenities on Green lanes and continuing to fight against this onslaught from the gambling industry upon our high street.
and sent to
Harringay ward
carolyn.baker@haringey.gov.uk,gina.adamou@haringey.gov.uk,karen.alexander2@haringey.gov.uk
If you live in St Ann's, write to
bob.harris@haringey.gov.uk, brian.haley@haringey.gov.uk, nilgun.canver@haringey.gov.uk
-
-
Have had a very swift response from one councillor,
I have indeed asked the council to have another look at this and see if there are anyways in which they can launch an appeal against the decision. Clearly there is a cost implication for them to do this and they would have be sure of having a very strong case before taking this route but I have asked that it be considered.
(Won't say which one for now).
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
I wrote to David Lammy MP about this a few weeks ago about this, but haven't had a response yet. Here is what I said.. I hope I've got the details right, as I know its very complicated. I'll certainly write to Councillors too if people think that would help.
Hugh - will message you something about your expert witness..
Dear David Lammy
Betting shops on Green Lanes
I am writing to complain about the sudden proliferation of betting shops opening in the Harringay area of Green Lanes.
I think you live locally, so I’m sure you are aware that a number of betting shops already operate in the area. Two more (Metrobet and Betterbet) have applied to Haringey Council for gaming licences. Both were turned down by the Council but I have heard that Metrobet (premises on the corner of Green Lanes and Warham Road) have successfully appealed against the decision. I would imagine the same decision will be made in relation to Betterbet (whose application was refused in February). Attempts are being made to convert 48 Green Lanes into a gaming centre. Planning permission for this was refused in December, but is being appealed.
I do not have a particular moral objection to betting, but I do have real concerns about such a small area having this number of betting shops. My objections are as follows:
* Crime and anti-social behaviour. The Harringay Safer Neighbourhoods Team have actively campaigned against the arrival of more betting shops in the local area. The January Safer Neighbourhoods Newsletter reports “it is clear that there have been numerous incidents of crime and disorder associated with the existing Betting Premises in Green Lanes. Corals, Ladbrokes and William Hill had all experienced several incidents in the last 18 months including armed robbery.” The Newsletter then lists 58 incidents that have occurred in the past year.
* The encouragement of problem gambling. The British Gambling Prelavence Study (carried out in 2007 by the National Centre for Social Research, on behalf of the Gambling Commission) looked at rates of problem gambling, which it defined as "gambling in a way that is harmful to a person’s family or personal life”. It found that rates of problem gambling are far higher among certain types of gambler. In particular, among those who play fixed odds betting terminals (the ones that are being installed in most/all of the betting shops on Green Lanes), rates of problem gambling stand at 11%.
* Volume and diversity on the high street. Put simply, I don’t really want to walk past five or six bookies on my way to the bank. I particularly don’t want to walk with my son past this number of betting shops, especially as he gets older. I would rather a more diverse mix of shops, that will broaden the opportunities available to local residents rather than just take their money out their pockets. Perhaps some think that the situation will eventually calm down, with market forces leading to less efficient or popular shops shutting down as others thrive. I suspect this is a rather naïve view, and certainly doesn’t seem to be shared by the betting industry, who are doing all they can to attract new customers to their premises.
Finally, I think it is wrong that local councils have so little discretion to refuse applications for gaming licenses (or, rather, to refuse them and then have this overturned on appeal). I understand that this is a direct consequence of changes to legislation that the government introduced a few years ago. I was very disappointed to hear this as it seems to fly in the face of any attempt to give local areas say over developments in their neighbourhood. For instance, over 50 people objected to the planning permission request relating to 48 Green Lanes (a volume I gather which was unprecedented). True, the planning application was rejected by the Council. But it seems fairly likely that the applicants will be able to overturn this.
I would really like to hear your views about this important local issue.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
I've just learned that Mr L has been on paternity leave and has also just lost a close family member. So perhaps we should give him a little more time.
-
-
Well, the shopfitters are in there today so I guess Metrobet are pretty certain there will be no more obstacles to their opening up...
-
-
Well, it won't be so far for me to go when I want to blow the child benefit on a horse on the 3.15 at Newmarket...I've had to go to all the inconvenience of crossing the road to the Ladbroke's up 'til now. I think it is so important that us housewife gamblers have a choice of establishment and they don't really mind if you bring the buggy in provided the baby covers himself in the Sporting Life if the police or council inspectors wander in. Infact, I've heard that Metrobet are going to have a cappucino lounge and breastfeeding facilities.
-
-
I rang Haringey's Legal Dept after you jogged my memory. They're meeting with the brief this PM to decide if they should appeal.
-
-
I just spoke with Maria Bilbao in Haringey's legal team.
Haringey are consulting a number of experts on whether they should appeal. Amongst their number is Phillip Colvin, the chap who wrote the book I referred to in the original posting.
For the appeal to be allowed, they need to identify a point of law, rather than simply asking for the decision to be reconsidered.
Maria's playing her cards pretty close to her chest, but the vibe I was getting is that they're less rather than more likley to appeal. They should be making the decision next week.
The decision will be made by the Director of Environment who will take councillors' views into account.
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
