Decision Given On Gaming Charge

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31364, 9 May 1967, Page 15

Decision Given On Gaming Charge

“I consider that notwithstanding my findings, the defendant acted solely to raise funds for the Christchurch Operatic Society,” said Mr K. H. J. Headifen, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday after delivering a reserved decision on two offences against the Gaming Act by Gordon Raymond Mowat, aged 41, a professional secre-tary-organiser. Mr P. G. S. Penlington represented Mowat.

Mowat was discharged without conviction under Section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act on charges of beginning a lottery between November 17 and December 14 and beginning a scheme by which a seller’s prize would be gained by chance, between the same dates.

The seller’s prize was a trip to Sydney. The Magistrate said he was not setting a precedent, and “this is not to say that I would accept the same submi* sions in other cases,” after Mr Penlington had submitted that a conviction would be harmful to the defendant who had been led into the offences.

The Magistrate said that the Christchurch Operatic Society approached the defendant to raise money for it and Mowat was to take a percentage of the return. “Mowat had some discussion with a Mr Bowden who was about to launch a publication called Teenmaii’ . . .

apparently he had spent some considerable time in obtaining a list of what he described as teen-agers throughout New Zealand.” These names were collected and intended to be used for the purpose of promoting sales of various products. As the result of discussion between Mowat and Bowden, books of tickets were sent out with a “Teenmail” newsletter, which offered a commission for tickets sold and a seller’s prize. The seller’s prize “is in direct contravention of the provisions of the Gaming Act, and it is contrary to the terms of the licence,” said the Magistrate. The offering of a commission was a direct breach of one of the conditions of the licence issued by the Internal Affairs Department.

“There is no suggestion that the defendant was acting for personal gain apart from the terms of remuneration that he was to receive. Nevertheless, it is clear from the evidence that the defendant was well aware of the conditions of the licence. . . . “It is clear . . . that no other articles are to be raffled or anything in substitution thereof. Here the defendant, by his own admission, added a seller’s prize to the articles authorised to be raffled.” There was a further breach of the terms of the licence which specified that tickets

were only to be sent or delivered on personal or written application. Tickets were also sent beyond the allowable area of Christchurch and surrounding districts, said the Magistrate. It was not disputed that the defendant was a man of good character. “If the effects ot this decision go much further than the immediate penalty and affect him in private life, it would be an injustice.” Mowat had obtained a permit for the raffle and had placed the facts before the Internal Affairs Department and had complied with a large part of the conditions. In the process, he had allowed himself to send out raffle tickets in the mail under a scheme thought up by another person. “I have considerable reservations about this scheme. The defendant may well have been talked into it,” said the Magistrate. Mowat was ordered to pay £3O towards the cost of prosecution, court costs on each charge, and £8 10s witnesses’ expenses.