Met’s involvement in UK general election betting investigation ends – GC may still bring charges 

In a statement the Met said there was still scope for criminal charges to be brought forward, however.

Charges would be brought under the Gambling Act, in an investigation handled by the Gambling Commission. Those found guilty could face up to two years imprisonment.

Election betting scandal hits UK general election

The investigation into election betting launched in June amid reports multiple Conservative party candidates and staff, plus a number of police officers, placed bets on a 4 July general election. The best were allegedly placed before then-prime minister Rishi Sunak announced the election date on 22 May. 

All are suspected of using confidential information to gain an unfair advantage in betting on the date of the general election. 

Among those caught up were Craig Williams MP, Sunak’s parliamentary private secretary and the Conservative candidate for Bristol North Laura Sanders. Each candidate lost the party’s support when it emerged they were under investigation by the Gambling Commission. 

Others including campaigns director Tony Lee, chief data officer Nick Lee and Russell George, a member of the Welsh Senedd, were caught up in the investigation, along with seven police officers. 

One of the officers, attached to the Royalty and Specialist Protection Command, was arrested on 17 June on suspicion of misconduct in public office and later bailed. The Met will not take any further action in relation to that specific offence.

No other individual was arrested or interviewed under caution as part of the Met’s investigation.

No case met the “high bar” for misconduct in public office charges

The Met coordinated with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Gambling Commission to assess any potential lawbreaking relating to election betting.

The Met was tasked with looking at bets suspected of not only breaking the Gambling Act’s rules on cheating, but also misconduct in a public office. 

This common law offence concerns “serious wilful abuse or neglect of the power or responsibilities of the public office held”. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Only a small number of cases were considered to amount to potential misconduct. The Met’s Specialist Crime Command assessed available evidence and took advice from the CPS. 

It ultimately determined there is insufficient evidence to prove misconduct in public office.

With the Met’s investigation concluded, its cases are transferred to the Gambling Commission for further investigation. 

“These allegations caused a significant dent in public confidence during the election campaign and it was right that they were investigated to explore all possible offences,” Detective Superintendent Katherine Goodwin said.

The Met’s involvement was not to be misinterpreted as an “all clear” for those under investigation, Goodwin said. “There are still Gambling Act offences to consider and it is appropriate that they are taken forward by investigators from the Gambling Commission who have particular expertise in this field.”

The seven officers alleged to have placed bets are still under investigation by the Commission, and the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards.

What charges could election betting offenders face?

Under Section 42 of the 2005 Gambling Act, those guilty of cheating can be fined or imprisoned for two years if convicted in a criminal court. If the case is filed in a magistrate’s court, the sentence can be up to six months imprisonment or a fine. 

Gambling Commission chief executive Andrew Rhodes said the regulator’s investigation was progressing, with several suspects interviewed under caution. 

“Our investigation continues to progress and we have interviewed several suspects under caution. We are continuing to interview a number of witnesses, who are co-operating with this criminal investigation, as well as gathering further documentary and electronic evidence,” he said.

“We clearly appreciate the level of public interest there is in this investigation but in order to protect the integrity of the investigation and to ensure a fair and just outcome, we are unable to comment further at this time, including the name of any person who may be under suspicion, or the total number of suspects.”