Suicide notifications received from operators
Request
The total aggregate number of suicide notifications received from all licensed operators under Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) Licence Condition 15.2.2, from 1 April 2024 to the present.
A month-by-month breakdown of these notifications for the same period.
The total number of unique licensees who have submitted one or more notifications under LC 15.2.2 during this period.
In the event that providing the precise figures requested in 1-3 would exceed the cost or time limits under Section 12 of FOIA, please instead confirm whether the total number of notifications received since 1 April 2024 was:
(a) greater than 10
(b) greater than 50
(c) greater than 100
- Copies of any internal guidance or policy documents used by the Commission to collate, analyse, or assess notifications made under LC 15.2.2.
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 total aggregate number of suicide notifications received from all licensed operators under Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) Licence Condition 15.2.2, from 1 April 2024 to the present.
A month-by-month breakdown of these notifications for the same period.
The total number of unique licensees who have submitted one or more notifications under LC 15.2.2 during this period.
In the event that providing the precise figures requested in 1-3 would exceed the cost or time limits under Section 12 of FOIA, please instead confirm whether the total number of notifications received since 1 April 2024 was:
(a) greater than 10
(b) greater than 50
(c) greater than 100
- Copies of any internal guidance or policy documents used by the Commission to collate, analyse, or assess notifications made under LC 15.2.2.
Firstly, it should be noted that the Gambling Commission do not investigate gambling related deaths or suicides; it is for the coroner to decide a cause of death. The Commission however will consider instances where there appears to be a regulatory breach.
As of 01/04/2024 a change in the LCCP came into effect that means operators are now required to inform us if a person who has gambled with them has died by suicide.
The purpose of collecting information from gambling businesses is for regulatory purposes, in two key areas:
- To inform our compliance and enforcement work.
- To inform regulatory policy (for example, on licensee interaction with their customers, customer use of gambling management tools and our knowledge of gambling across multiple gambling businesses).
The purpose of the provision is not to create a comprehensive or robust data set to establish the number of deaths by suicide. This information is not suitable as a measure for the number of deaths by suicide associated with gambling and must not be used as a proxy for such figures.This is because gambling businesses will not always be aware when a person who has gambled with them has died by suicide and so the reported figures may not be complete, and also because the figures will not be able to tell us which deaths by suicide were associated with the customer's gambling, which is a highly complex assessment beyond the remit of gambling businesses and the Commission.
When a report is made, we consider the information available and, depending on the evidence, we may undertake further enquiries to determine whether there is sufficient evidence of regulatory failure in the gambling licensee’s processes. For example, this could be in relation to failing to identify customers who may be experiencing or are at risk of experiencing gambling harm and failing to act to prevent that harm. Where we identify failings, we consider what regulatory action may be appropriate.
Some reports will not lead to an investigation. This could be for a number of reasons. For example, gambling licensees are required to report the death by suicide of a person who has gambled with them, regardless of whether the death related to gambling, and it may be evident that the case does not relate to any potential regulatory failure of a gambling licensee. Other reports may be inaccurate or lack important information such as the person’s name, for example in relation to non-remote gambling customers where the name of the customer may not be known. There may be insufficient evidence of regulatory failure. We are unlikely to take regulatory action against gambling licensees who have already been subject to regulatory action for the same breach in the same period. Some cases reported to us may not be suitable for investigation due to the passage of time since the incident occurred and lack of available evidence.
We have published information about the number of operator reports we have received (and also the number of individuals to which these reports relate) from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025 (broken down by month). Further to this, we have also published the number of unique licensees who have submitted one or more reports, alongside these figures. Section 21 of the FOIA provides that information is exempt where it is reasonably accessible elsewhere. This information can be viewed here:
Operator reported death by suicide from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025
Whilst I can confirm that the Gambling Commission does now hold over 12 months of information in the scope of your request, the Commission intends to publish this information on an annual basis. As such, Section 22(1) of the FOIA (“information that is intended to be published in the future”) is engaged regarding any operator reports outside the period 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.
Section 22
Section 22 provides that information is exempt if:
a) the information is held by the public authority with a view to its publication, by the authority or any other person, at some future date (whether determined or not),
b) the information was already held with a view to such publication at the time when the request for information was made,
This is a qualified exemption, therefore, the Commission must consider whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption is greater than the public interest in disclosing the requested information.
Arguments in favour of disclosure
- There is a legitimate public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities.
- There is a public interest in Government Departments providing information they hold, that falls within the scope of a FOI request, as quickly as possible.
Arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption
- Releasing the data after one full year of operation will enable us to consider how to present the data to ensure that its purpose, and meaning is explained, and the context of our wider work is reflected (such as other relevant data sources).
- Premature publication of this data could lead to an incomplete and unclear picture emerging and would be likely to cause prejudice to both our compliance and enforcement work and policy development.
- Providing information as quickly as possible needs to be balanced with the public interest in the Commission ensuring the maximum time/cost effectiveness; providing this information in response to a FOI request is not the most time/cost effective way of placing this information in the public domain when it will be published in due course on the Commission website.
Weighing the balance
Having considered the above factors, the Commission is of the view that the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption. We recognise that there is a public interest in promoting the transparency and accountability of public authorities in a timely manner
Taking into consideration the necessary preparation and administration involved in disclosing information of this nature, prior to the intended publication, without any accompanying context and commentary, we consider that our publication timetable is reasonable.
Please note, whilst s.22 does require that the Commission must hold the information at the time of the request with a view to its publication, the exemption does not require a set publication date to be in place. This information will be published in the near future, in an equivalent format to that which you requested.
Finally, I can confirm that the Commission does hold various internal guidance and policy documents used to collate, analyse, or assess notifications.
This internal guidance contains the level of detail used to assess whether a person or entity is fit to continue to hold a licence. Releasing such detail would reveal the methods and techniques the Commission uses as part of the assessment process. We are of the view that the disclosure of this information would prejudice the regulatory functions of the commission. As such, this information is exempt under section 31 of the FOIA.
Section 31
Section 31(1) provides that Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice:
(g) the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2)
The relevant purpose referred to subsection (2) is –
(d) the purpose of ascertaining a person’s fitness or competence in relation to the management of bodies corporate or in relation to any profession or other activity which he is, or seeks to become, authorised to carry on,
It is our view that the regulatory functions of the Commission, would be prejudiced by disclosure of this information as follows:
i) Prejudice to the Commission’s ability to fulfil its statutory functions by revealing details about how the Commission conducts its assessments, and
ii) Prejudice to the Commission’s ability to raise overall standards in the gambling industry by revealing which matters will be subject to a more detailed assessment, the resources that will be devoted to it and the methodology the Commission will use.
Undermining statutory functions
The information requested forms part of our licencee compliance assessment process. These documents set out the procedure that staff need to follow when assessing licencees ability to comply with the requirements of the Gambling Act, LCCP and any other guidance provided by the Commission.
The release of our assessment process will have a direct impact on our statutory functions, by not only providing information to enable licensees to present information required as part of the assessment process in such a manner to remain licensed, but also undermining the process to determine the genuine suitability of licencees, which will ultimately impact on consumers.
The Commission considers that disclosure of the requested information would provide licensees with information that could be used to undermine and circumvent the assessment process and reduce the possibility of any non-compliance being detected by the Commission because they would have been informed of the particular areas of the assessment that the Commission directs its resources towards, the particular form and type of evidence required and conversely what evidence does not appear to be relevant to the Commission’s assessment. The Commission’s concern is that this would result in operators or individuals using the disclosed information to present information in a manner which would avoid further scrutiny.
By releasing these documents into the public domain, the Commission will be in a position where it will not be able to rely on the current process to assess licensees and would need to introduce further assessment processes which have not been disclosed to ensure that the assessment process remains robust and fit for purpose in order for the Commission to perform its statutory functions.
Raising overall standards in the gambling industry
The Commission also takes the view that disclosure is likely to reduce the overall standards in the gambling industry. Operators would be able to second guess or predict what specific matters will be subject to a more detailed assessment, the resources that will be devoted to it and the methodology the Commission will use and therefore, able to tailor the information they present in a strategic manner which would deprive the Commission of information which would otherwise have been provided and which would be relevant to the Commission’s assessment of the operator.
The more information about how the Commission allocates its resources and the activities it is concerned with, added with information on how it goes about assessing licencees, the better able an unscrupulous organisation will be to make an accurate assessment of the likelihood of particular information coming to the attention of that regulator.
The Commission therefore concludes that the disclosure of this information would prejudice the regulatory functions of the Commission.
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.
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 any individuals/organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.
- Disclosure of the requested information could demonstrate to stakeholders and relevant parties how the Commission is assessing information received and, furthermore, this disclosure 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 assessing licensees. These procedures and processes have been put in place to minimise the risk of an operator continuing to hold a licence where they do not meet the required standards. This demonstrates to the public at large that they can have confidence in the Commission’s licence assessment processes.
- There is an expectation of confidence in much of the Commission’s work, particularly regarding the techniques used to ascertain if an operator should continue to hold a licence. It is the impact on this work of the Commission which is more likely to be affected by disclosure. The amount of information the Commission can release relating to our specific regulatory techniques which is directed at its staff who are assessing operators is limited as this could lead to potentially non-compliant operators altering their behaviour specifically to meet the Commission’s standards purely for assessment purposes. This in turn may impact on the Commission’s function of ascertaining a gambling operator’s fitness to carry out gambling activities.
- However, in order to promote transparency there is information that is publicly available, both on our website but also via our statement of principles for licensing and regulation which clearly sets out the required standards that operator licensees are expected to comply. Therefore it is our view that there is sufficient information publicly available about the assessment process and assessment framework to adequately address the public interest in transparency in respect of this matter. The Commission also publishes other information in relation to how it assesses licensees, including its Licensing, compliance and enforcement under the Gambling Act 2005 document, providing information about assessing operators. Therefore, to the extent that there is a public interest in transparency around the assessment of licensees this is already met by the material the Commission proactively publishes.
- Disclosure of this information would also undermine the Commission's ability to uphold the licensing objectives which would impact on the trust and confidence of the public in it as a regulator.
- Further, disclosure of the requested information would prejudice the outcome of future assessments by the Commission by exposing assessment techniques and practices to the detriment of the public interest.
Weighing the balance
The Commission acknowledges that there is a public interest in promoting the accountability and transparency of public authorities and the importance of having sufficient information in the public domain to support consumers with their choice of operator, however, disclosure of the information would be damaging to the Commission as a regulatory body which ultimately serves to protect the wider public interest.
It is important that the public are assured that the Commission is carrying out its functions in ensuring that any individuals/organisations who are involved in providing gambling facilities to the public have undergone the necessary assessments and will uphold the licencing objectives ensuring that consumers are protected.
However, there is a strong public interest in preserving the processes that the Commission has in place to assess operators and identify any licensees who are unable to comply with the licensing requirements. The public trust that the Commission has robust processes in place to assess operators so that when they use the services provided by an operator, they are confident that there has been sufficient scrutiny of that operator to ensure that they are protected. If this information were released it would undermine that confidence.
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. Public knowledge of these internal documents is very unlikely to contribute to a proper understanding of the regulatory activities of the Commission. There is sufficient information already published on our website about our compliance processes to satisfy the public interest in this matter.
We consider that the public interest is better served by withholding the requested documentation ensuring that consumers are protected through our processes rather than releasing information about our processes which in our view will not benefit the public as a whole.
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