Chinese bookies battle set for court - First hurdle overcome as campaigners fight increase in betting shops in Chinatown
Published: 04 February 2011
by JOSH LOEB
ACTIVISTS angry at the spread of betting shops in Chinatown this week confirmed they will go to the High Court to seek a judicial review of a City Hall licencing decision.
Nikki Lee, of campaign group London Citizens, which is bringing the case, said the group had raised enough money to cover the first stage of its legal battle – an application for a court order limiting its liability to £5,000.
She said that on Tuesday, two days before Chinese New Year’s Day, she received confirmation from the court that the case would be listed. A date for the hearing has not yet been fixed.
Richard Stein, solicitor for London Citizens, has called the case “a complete precedent”. If successful, it could force councils to take into account the ethnic mix of an area when making licensing decisions.
Last week, London Citizens went to Westminster Magistrates Court to appeal against a recent decision by Westminster Council to grant a licence to a new betting shop in Chinatown.
The case was thrown out by the judge, opening the way for a High Court challenge.
The campaigners say Chinatown is already saturated with bookies and that Chinese people are particularly vulnerable to gambling due to their cultural heritage.
Ms Lee said: “This is about the Chinese community speaking up, which we haven't seen before.”
Edmond Yeo, chairman of the Board of Trustees at the Chinese Information and Advice Centre in Charing Cross Road, said gambling had led to the breakdown of marriages and plunged people into debt.
He added: “The fact that there are so many betting shops impinges on our traditional culture. The Chinese are vulnerable to gambling. When they get their a 20-30 minute break, what do they do? They go gambling.”
City Hall licensing chiefs have previously argued that they cannot turn down licences due to an area’s racial demography.
A Westminster City Council press spokeswoman said they could not comment on an ongoing case.