Bookmaking raids result in convictions

Press, 9 March 1982, Page 4

Bookmaking raids result in convictions

Two people who were the subject of police raids of two different residential premises in Christchurch on the same day, January 4, for suspected bookmaking activities, were convicted in the District Court yesterday of offences under the. Gaming and Lotteries Act. In a reserved decision yesterday, after having heard evidence in the two cases last week, Judge Fogarty found Marie Joy Rouxei, aged 36, a housewife, guilty of a charge of carrying on the business of a bookmaker on January 4. She was convicted and fined $BOO. Paul Vaughan Costigan, aged 34, an unemployed insurance agent, had three charges of carrying on the business of a bookmaker on January 1,3, and 4 reduced by the Judge to charges of acting as a bookmaker’s agent. He admitted the amended charges, and was convicted and fined $5OO on each. The Judge directed that bookmaking items and records found at the two defendants’ two premises be forfeited to the police. The Judge also directed that the telephone at the address in Durham Street where Costigan had operated. be disconnected for two years. Evidence in the two defended cases had been heard last week. Both were represented by Mr M. J. Glue. The Judge had reserved his decision after submis-

sions had been heard relating to the distinctions under the new Act for bookmaking, and acting as a bookmaker’s agent, '

When th’e cases were heard last week police evidence was given that- Rouxei was found at her home in Fenchurch Street, with material including lists of horses, and amounts placed in bets, and records of payments. The police took 15 telephone calls, and some callers placed bets on horses which were racing at Addington that evening.

No defence evidence was given, but submissions were made that Rouxei was acting only as an agent. Police evidence against Costigan was that he had been chased and caught after running from a flat in Durham Street, owned by another person. His Bankcard was left behind on a table, which also had bookmaking items.

Costigan had given evidence and called a witness for the defence, that he had been acting as an agent for a bookmaker, whose name he did not divulge, and that he was paid $lO an hour by the bookmaker to record bets. Mr Glue made further submissions on the two cases yesterday, and said certain features were common to both. He described the new Act as a badly drafted statute. He said both defendants were raided at the same time on January 4 by two different police parties. Simi-

lar material was found on both premises, giving weight to the possibility that both defendants worked for an undisclosed bookmaker.

Sergeant W. J. McCormick, for the police, submitted that the evidence showed that the two defendants were working as bookmakers. They were not merely agents, and whether they were principals, or bookmakers working for another, they were still bookmakers, he said.

The Judge said he was in no doubt from the evidence that on the day the notes made by Rouxei were part of a bookmaker's records. He said in relation to the three bookmaking charges against Costigan that although he was suspicious of the defence evidence as a whole, it nevertheless left him in doubt whether the charges as laid had been proved. Costigan had admitted carrying on bookmaking work, but stated he was doing so as an agent. Looking at the whole evidence he could not be satisfied that it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Costigan was working as a bookmaker, rather than an agent. The Judge then amended the three charges to acting as a bookmaker’s agent, and Costigan pleaded guilty to these. The Judge said the evidence disclosed that over the three days he operated as an agent, a substantial number i of bets were laid, and for a substantial amount of money. ’