Gaming Law in UK Law

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.

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.

People do not game in order to win chips. They are mere counters or symbols used for the convenience of all concerned in the gaming. If actual money were lent to the defendant in order to game and the game were played for cash, the defendant would pay her own losses in cash and the plaintiffs would be under no obligation to pay anything to the winners.

At present I do not wish to state the principle any less broadly than this: that the defence is available to a person whose position has so changed that it would be inequitable in all the circumstances to require him to make restitution, or alternatively to make restitution in full.

However, as previously stated, the only lawful credit that the casino can give is to accept a cheque to enable the customer to take part in the gaming. Again, as previously stated, such a cheque must comply with Sections 16 (2) and 16 (3). Thus the only way in which a debt in respect of any loss incurred in gaming can lawfully arise is if that cheque is dishonoured.

They can, and should, receive information from any other reliable source. If the Board were bound to disclose every detail, that might itself give the informer away and put him in peril, But, without disclosing every detail, I should have thought that the Board ought in every case to be able to give to the applicant sufficient indication of the objections raised against him such as to enable him to answer them. If they are not, these Courts will not hesitate to interfere.

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.