Were multiple Merkur sites were reviewed as part of the investigation?

Request

Your article, £95,450 fine for Merkur Slots UK Limited, suggests you investigated this case as a one off. Is this true or was there other Merkur sites reviewed to make the entire investigation worthwhile?

Response

Thank you for your request which has been processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

In your email you have referenced £95,450 fine for Merkur Slots UK Limited, you have requested information as to whether other Merkur sites were reviewed as part of this investigation.

The Gambling Commission do not provide comment on any investigations unless it is in the public interest to do so. As such, we are unable to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request. Section 31(3) of the FOIA (Law Enforcement) exemption applies.

Having acknowledged that the Commission is not able to confirm or deny whether we hold any information within the scope of your request, section 31 of the FOIA requires that we consider a public interest test to identify whether there is a wider public interest in fulfilling this request as opposed to maintaining the exemption.

Arguments 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. 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.

• Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission conducts its investigatory activities.
• Furthermore, 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.

Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption

• The Commission has robust and effective processes and procedures in place which are utilised when exercising our investigatory powers. These procedures and processes have been put in place to increase the integrity of investigations, demonstrating to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s ability to uphold its statutory obligations.
• There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly regarding the course of an investigation. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure.
• Confirming or denying information which makes specific individuals, events or lines of enquiry identifiable could alert individuals involved to the fact that the Commission was/is or alternatively wasn’t/isn’t engaging in specific conversations; providing an opportunity for individuals to alter their behaviours or evade detection. This would result in making it more difficult for the Commission to achieve its aims.
• Further to this, simply confirming or denying this request for information would impact on the openness of stakeholders when sharing important information with us or other law enforcement agencies. The amount of information released is carefully considered in order to protect the integrity of the Commission’s work and individuals from being unfairly associated with unsubstantiated allegations.
• Finally, fulfilling this request may prejudice the outcome of future regulatory work of the Commission, or another body, to the detriment of the public interest.

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, therefore, we are not in a position to confirm or deny whether we hold any information in relation to your request.

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