Gaming and Gambling Places in UK Law

He must decide whether or no suspected persons are to be prosecuted; and, if need be, bring the prosecution or see that it is brought. But in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one.

Like the Tribunal I would hold that the random generation of a number in a separate unit which serves various player terminals (which may themselves be running different games) is properly regarded as an external event and not one produced by the machine that the player is playing. Like the Tribunal I do not think it is possible to elaborate further.

Legislation against, or controlling, gaming, wagering and betting is many centuries old in the United Kingdom. It is impossible to frame accurate definitions which can cover every such variety: attempts to do so may indeed be counter-productive, since each added precision merely provides an incentive to devise a variant which eludes it.

If right so far, I also do not understand why the multi-terminal systems should be treated any differently. The fact that there is only one RNG serving several terminals cannot make a material difference. In substance, the systems are exactly the same as in both previous configurations. By like reasoning, I cannot see why each terminal and the single RNG do not together constitute a machine within section 26.

The question posed by the statute is not whether, in the course of a business, a person receives bets. The question is whether he carries on the business of receiving bets. Someone who operates a betting shop, or who has a stand at a race meeting, receives bets there. His business is that of receiving bets. The person who operates through a betting exchange may in the course of doing so find himself receiving a bet. But he does not carry on the business of receiving bets.

But when the defendant seeks to plead justification at a late stage, his conduct will be closely enquired into. The Court will expect him to have shown due diligence in making his enquiries and investigations. The Court may well refuse him application if he has been guilty of delay or not made proper enquiries earlier. That case turned on its particular circumstances. That is why it was never reported. It is the case of O'Toole v. Chambers (unreported, 1924. O. No. 1743)

So I do not, as at present advised, think it is clear that it is essential to find all the five tests set out by Mr. Justice Fry Literally applicable and satisfied in any particular case. The real test, as I say, I think must be whether upon the faster of the particular case the situation has become such that it would be dishonest, or unconceivable, for the plaintiff, of for the person having the right sought to be enforced, to continue to back to enforce it.