S.M. Finds Prima Facie Case Of Bookmaking

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30939, 21 December 1965, Page 6

S.M. Finds Prima Facie Case Of Bookmaking

The police had established a prima facie case against Robert Manuera Thoms, aged 46, a showman, who was charged with carrying on the business of a bookmaker at Leeston on October 16 by running the game known as red, white, and blue, Mr E.' A. Lee, S.M., found in a reserved decision given in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon. No penalty was imposed on the charge, which was adjourned to February 28 to enable a decision to be made whether an appeal should be lodged or a case stated to the Supreme Court.

Mr W. F. Brown appeared for Tboms. who pleaded not guilty to the charge, which was heard on November 4. Sergeant V. F. Townshend Droeecuted. Apparently the game of red, white and blue had been permitted for many years without any objection, and it seemed rather drastic to arrest the accused on that or any associated charge, the Magistrate said. Inspector R. P. Silk, who ordered the accused’s arrest, had agree, that there was a difference of opinion among senior police officers about the game, md in view of its popularity an authoritative decision whether the prohibition on betting in the Gaming Act covered such games appeared desirable. Stall At Show The Magistrate said that on October 16 Thoms had a stall at the Ellesmere Agricultural and Pastoral Association’s show at Leeston. The apparatus for the game of red, white, and blue consisted of a board containing a number of narrow red, white, and blue strips. The board was placed upright, and the player threw a dart at it.

On a table in front of the board was a coloured cloth divided into three parts, coloured red, white, and blue. The odds were one to one on the red and white and three to one on the blue. The contestant put his money on the colour of his choice and then attempted to hit the corresponding colour on the board with the dart. If he did so he was repaid his stake and a prize in money determined by the odds on the colour he selected. . ~ Sergeant J. Burrell had said he saw only the person throwtog the dart making th; bet. He had admitted he was aware that the game had been played for many years at shows and other gatherings. Inspector Silk had said he heard the accused inviting bets and announcing the odds, and saw one man make four bets on the “Conflicting Decisions”

“At the end of the police case Mr Brown asked that the charge be dismissed, but was invited to make legal submissions. This he has done, and he acknowledges that the question is one of some difficulty because of some conflicting decisions,” the Magistrate said. The question was whether the accused’s conduct brought him within the provisions of the Gaming Act. Mr Brown had suggested that it could be held that the game was one of skill played for a monetary prize and the accused’s actions did not amount to betting or wagering. “It has, I believe, been previously decided that the game is one of mixed skill and chance. No doubt many people achieve considerable skill with darts, and this game could well contain a substantial amount of skill. But it seems on the English authorities that the question of skill does not enter into consideration when the charge is one of betting” the Magistrate said.

There existed two clear schools of judicial thought on the problem, said the Magistrate, who quoted various legal decisions. In one decision, he said, the judges thought that to apply the provisions of the Betting Act to transactions to which the personal skill of the player must more or less contribute to his success would inevitably lead to injustice and absurdity. They said it would include all golf clubs, billi-

ards saloons, shooting gal* leries, and the Aunt Sally booth at the fair.

“I must confess to a very considerable sympathy with the view expressed in these judgments, and particularly since if the accused is convicted he becomes liable to a penalty of £5OO or one month’s imprisonment That ,of itself suggests that the modest game the accused was playing was not one the statute was directed against" said the Magistrate. It was of equal significance that if the accused brought himself within the definition of a bookmaker, then the man who put his 2s on the blue also committed an offence and was liable on conviction to a penalty of £lOO or imprisonment for six months. "It is hard to accept that this modest game played at country fairs and shows was such a cancer gnawing at the vitals of the nation that the

Legislature saw fit to demand such a heavy penalty to ensure its prohibition.” the Magistrate said. “However, to hold that the accused did not offend requires that I find that the statute was not intended to deal with this type of betti. g. ... If the Legislature had intended competitions such as red, white, and blue were not to be prohibited, it would have been easy to say so," said the Magistrate. “Within Section** The accused’s actions were within the literal language of the section, and to hold that the accused had not offended would require the Court tn find, having regard to the object of the statute, that a meaning different from the literal meaning must be placed upon the definition of bookmaker and the provisions of section 4 of the 1920 amendment “The Act makes no distinction between games of chance and games of skill, but 1 feel the accused’s offering of odds clearly indicates he was holding himself out as a person with whom a bet might be made, and was stating the odds on a particular event ‘To invoke the provisions of the Gaming Act with its tremendously heavy penalties against a person playing such an innocuous game for modest stakes is somewhat like using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut and it to seems to me quite inappropriate and unjust that the accused in the circumstances be subject to all the consequences of a conviction under the Gaming Act” the Magistrate said.