Futgalaxy Prosecution
Request
The initial details of the prosecution case, indictment(s), defence statement(s), witness statement(s), and skeleton arguments associated with the prosecution of Dylan Rigby and Craig Douglas by the Gambling Commission in relation to FutGalaxy.com. The files should generally be from, but are not limited to, between 2016–2017. For the avoidance of doubt, documents filed with the English court are within the public domain following the principle of Open Justice. Minimal, if any, redactions should be made.
Response
Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
In your email you have requested:
‘The initial details of the prosecution case, indictment(s), defence statement(s), witness statement(s), and skeleton arguments associated with the prosecution of Dylan Rigby and Craig Douglas by the Gambling Commission in relation to FutGalaxy.com. The files should generally be from, but are not limited to, between 2016–2017. For the avoidance of doubt, documents filed with the English court are within the public domain following the principle of Open Justice. Minimal, if any, redactions should be made.’
We can confirm we hold information falling within the scope of your request.
Please see the attached information held by the Gambling Commission we are able to disclose falling within the scope of your request. The following exemptions apply to some of the information that we hold.
Section 40(2)
We have redacted from the attached, information relating to identifiable individuals that would constitute personal data where we do not consider there is a lawful basis to disclose this data. This includes names and addresses.
The Data Protection Act 2018 requires personal data to be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject. It is the view of the Commission that disclosing the personal information within the attached documents would constitute the disclosure of personal data and would contravene this principle.
This information is therefore exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Section 30(1)
Section 30(1)(a) of the FOIA, provides that information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has, at any time, been held by the authority for the purposes of:
(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained
(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it
Consideration of section 30(1) is a two-stage process. Firstly, the exemption must be shown to be engaged. Secondly, as section 30 is a qualified exemption, it is subject to the public interest test.
Engaging the exemption
Section 22 of the Gambling Act 2005 (the Act) sets out that the Gambling Commission is responsible for regulating and promoting licencing objectives as set out in section 1 of the Gambling Act 2005.
The statutory duties laid out in section 1 are:
a) preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime,
b) ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way, and
c) protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.
Through our regulatory activities we aim to protect consumers and the wider public by raising standards within the gambling industry.
Under section 27 of the Act the Commission may undertake activities for the purpose of assessing –
(a) compliance with provision made by or by virtue of [the] Act
(b) whether an offence is being committed under [the] Act.
By virtue of section 28 of the Act the Commission has the power to investigate whether an offence has been committed under the Act and may institute criminal proceedings in respect of offences under the Act in England and Wales.
Any information that we can publicly disclose in relation to particular regulatory activities is made available on our website at the appropriate time so as not to disclose any information that could impact on our ability to make enquiries and conduct investigations or enable those we investigate to avoid detection.
In this instance, the request seeks specific documentation associated with the prosecution of Dylan Rigby and Craig Douglas by the Gambling Commission in relation to FutGalaxy.com. The information requested has been previously held for the purposes of the criminal proceedings against Mr Craig Douglas and Mr Dylan Rigby, which took place in 2017, conducted in accordance with the Commission’s powers under section 27 and 28 of the Act.
The Commission therefore considers this exemption is engaged.
Public interest test
As set out above, when it is established an exemption is engaged, it will be subject to the public interest test.
The factors the Commission has considered when applying the public interest test have been detailed below and our view is that the public interest lies in favour of applying the exemption.
In favour of disclosure
The Commission is a public body which is required to regulate the gambling industry in the public interest. There is therefore a public interest in members of the public having confidence the Commission is being open and honest with the information it holds so that it can be held to account.
It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that it is fulfilling its statutory obligations as set out in section 22 of the Gambling Act 2005, as described above.
Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission conducts its investigatory activities. Fulfilling this request may encourage stakeholders to work with us and contribute to our programme of work, increasing confidence in the Commission as a regulator and its ability to uphold the law.
The Commission also recognises that those engaged in lawful and legitimate betting have a right to understand where illegal gambling within the betting industry lies so that they can make better informed decisions. Disclosure of the withheld information might assist.
Disclosure of the withheld information may also have the effect of discouraging operators from continuing their unlawful activity, as it would demonstrate the Commission’s proactive work in the investigation of alleged criminal activity.
In favour of maintaining the exemption
The Commission acknowledges that there is a public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities. However, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest.
There is a very strong public interest in protecting the investigative capabilities of public authorities and disclosure of the information would provide an insight into how this investigation was conducted which risks compromising the approaches taken in future cases. Disclosing information considered as part of a criminal investigation which has been received from third parties who assisted with the investigation could create a perception among the wider public that sensitive information about criminal investigations may be disclosed to the world at large. This may deter the wider public including witnesses, complainants and suspects from coming forward and cooperating with prosecuting authorities, particularly where criminal offences have been alleged.
There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, both internally and externally. The release of the information in the scope of the request under FOIA would be a gross breach of trust of the witnesses who provided evidence and those involved in the investigation of the case, particularly where this information is not in the public domain and where that information was not heard in open court.
Consideration has also been given as to whether the information in scope could be disclosed in anonymised form. However, this would still not prevent the risk of the disclosed material providing an insight into how this investigation was conducted which could in turn impact on the conduct and approach of similar investigations in the future. Release of such material even in anonymised form still represents a risk of undermining the integrity of the Commission’s investigatory processes and procedures.
Disclosure of this information would also undermine the Commission's ability to uphold the licensing objectives (as noted above) which would impact on the trust and confidence of the public in it as a regulator.
It is also worth noting that the Commission has already published the outcome of this case, which can be found here: Two men convicted after offering illegal gambling parasitic upon popular FIFA computer game. We therefore believe there is a limited public demand for disclosure of the specific information requested.
The Commission concludes that the disclosure of some information relating to the investigation in question would prejudice the statutory functions of the Commission. The witness statements and defence statements are therefore exempt from disclosure.
Weighing the balance
Given the points considered, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which serves to protect the wider public interest. As such, the Commission believes that the interests of the public are better served through maintaining the exemption.
Looking at all the circumstances of the case and the nature of the request, the Commission considers that the relevant prejudice identified above would be caused to the Commission by disclosure and this weighs in the balance when considering the question of public interest.
Review of the decision
If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your Freedom of Information request you are entitled to an internal review of our decision. You should write to FOI Team, Gambling Commission, 4th floor, Victoria Square House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B2 4BP or by reply to this email.
Please note, internal review requests should be made within 40 working days of the initial response. Requests made outside this timeframe will not be processed.
If you are not content with the outcome of our review, you may then apply directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO) for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have already exhausted the review procedure provided by the Gambling Commission.
It should be noted that if you wish to raise a complaint with the ICO about the Commission’s handling of your request for information, then you are required to do so within six weeks of receiving your final response or last substantive contact with us.
The ICO can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner’s Office (opens in a new tab), Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
Information Management Team
Gambling Commission
Files
Some files may not be accessible for users of assistive technology. If you require a copy of the file in an accessible format contact us (opens in new tab) with details of what you require. It would help us to know what technology you use and the required format.
PDF Files Some PDF files cannot be displayed in a browser, you will see a message saying "Please wait...". If you see this message, you will need to download the file and open it in Adobe Acrobat Reader (opens in a new tab).