Pramod Kumar Sejjehunddi Mahadesh v The Gambling Commission

I have conducted a hearing by CVP with the agreement of the parties. I have considered an open bundle of documents and heard a submission from Mr Stein KC.

The appeal was listed at 10.00am. Notice of today’s hearing was included in the Case Management Directions dated 9 September 2024. An email dated 3 September 2024 to the Appellant (pages 88 and 89) provided the details of the time and date of the hearing and a link to information about CVP. The Appellant was informed in that email about the procedure for applying for a change to the hearing date. The Appellant did not apply for a change to the hearing date. When the Appellant did not join the hearing at 10.00 am the tribunal clerk telephoned him using the telephone number provided by him. The telephone call was not answered. I waited until 10.10 am and the Appellant did not join the hearing and no message was received from him.

Having considered rules 2 and 36 of the Rules I considered it was in the interests of justice to proceed to determine the appeal in the absence of the Appellant. He has been given the opportunity to attend and has chosen not to do so and I have sufficient evidence to determine the appeal.

The Appellant made an application for a personal functional licence (“PFL”) received by the Commission on 5 January 2024.

On 19 February 2024 the Commission refused the Appellant’s application because the Commission was not satisfied that the Appellant was suitable to carry on the licensed activities. The reasons for the decision appear in the decision letter which appears at pages 3 and 4 of the bundle.

The Appellant lodged an undated appeal on form GRC1.

The Appellant puts forward the following grounds of appeal:

The Commission puts forward the following points:

The relevant legislation appears in the Act. In reaching my decision I have borne in mind that the powers of the Tribunal set out in section 144. In determining the appeal I have had regard to the relevant provision of the codes of practice issued by the Commission.

Section 127 of the Act specifies who needs a PFL and section 139 specifies the form that the application should take.

In reaching my decision I have taken into account all the evidence before me whether or not specifically referred to in this Decision.

I find that a PFL is required to work within licensed premises when working as a dealer or croupier, a cashier, an inspector, a pit boss or gaming supervisor or as security or in monitoring surveillance related to gambling activities.

I find that it is the responsibility of the Appellant to follow the relevant rules and regulations and it not the responsibility of the Appellant’s employer.

I find that the Commission requests that PFL applications are complete and accurate at the point they are submitted. I find that the Commission is required to have regard to the licensing objectives of section 1 of the Act and consider whether those objectives are likely to be compromised and the suitability of the Appellant to carry out the licensed activities. I find that when making the decision the Commission had regard to the licencing objectives.

I find that in order to consider the Appellant’s suitability the Commission must have regard to the identity of the Appellant, the integrity of the Appellant, the competence of the Appellant to carry out the licensed activities in a manner consistent with the pursuit of the licensing objectives and the financial and other circumstances of the Appellant past and present and the criminality of the Appellant. I find the Commission needs to establish the identity of the Appellant using appropriate official documentation.

I find that the history of the Appellant’s claim for a PFL is chronologically set out in the document headed Tasks and History (pages 103 to 111) which sets out the history of the processing stages of the Appellant’s application.

I find the Appellant did not submit the identity documents as part of the Appellant’s application received on 5 January 2024.

I find that the Commission emailed the Appellant on 9 January 2024 requesting the verified identity documents. The email set out what documents were required and provided links to the Appellant to assist him.

I find that the Commission’s website contains links to guides for confirmation of identity.

On 10 January 2024 the Appellant provided unverified copies of his Indian passport and a residence permit. On 19 January 2024 the commissions outlined the identity documents submitted by the Appellant could not be accepted due to not being verified and the Commission explained how to do this. The Commission requested that the Appellant provide verified identity documents that included his UK address.

On 23 January 2024 the Appellant provided the unverified documents again. The Commission emailed the Appellant on 23 January 2024 and repeated the request for the verified identity documents and that one of the documents should include his UK address.

On 24 January 2024 the Appellant provided the same unverified identity documents that he had previously submitted.

I find that the Commission email the Appellant on 9 February 2024 (page 138) stating that the Appellant needed to provide verified copies of his identity documents and that one of the documents had to contain his UK address, such as a bank statement or a driving licence. Included in the email was a link for more information on identity documents.

At the date of the decision the Commission had not received verified documents from the Appellant.

I find that the points raised by the Appellant in his appeal do not assist him.

In relation to the point that he was unaware of the documentation process, I find that the Commission provided ample information to inform the Appellant how to provide verified copies of his identity documents.

The Commission’s website explains, also, what it means to certify a document, namely, that a document can be certified as a true copy by getting it signed and dated by a professional person, like a solicitor. The website sets out what documents can be certified and how this can be done and explains what documents need to be provided in support of an application to obtain a PFL.

I find that it was explained to the Appellant by the Commission that the documents had to be verified and where he could find further information to better understand the process.

It does not assist the Appellant that he uploaded documents on two occasions taking into account that the documents were not verified. I find that the Appellant was given guidance and was given repeated reminders from the Commission which he failed to act upon.

It does not assist the Appellant that the uploading of unverified documents was a mistake.

I have made an order for costs on the grounds that the Appellant has acted unreasonably in bringing and conducting the proceedings pursuant to rule 10 of the Rules. In reaching this decision I have taken into account that the Appellant did not respond to the case management directions of 11 July 2024, he failed to respond to the email dated 18 July 2024 from the Commission, he failed to request a hearing in front of a Director of the Commission and he failed to attend the hearing today without explanation.