Criminal Law and Practice in Scotland
| Published date | 01 September 1961 |
| Date | 01 September 1961 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X6103400509 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
£riminal
Law
and
Practice
in
Seotland
THE
BElTING
&
GAMING
ACT, 1960
Some
Early
Cases
It
is practically a year since this Act received the Royal Assent,
July 29, 1960.
It
is to a large extent now in force although certain
provisions are
not
yet operative.
The
Act
introduced aconsiderable
number
of
new features
and
in these early stages those who have to
operate it, particularly
the
"appropriate
authorities"
have little
to guide them.
From
the
cases reported so far, it appears
that
in at least four
cases the Sheriff has taken adifferent view from the local authority
in Edinburgh as to
what
amounts to sufficient grounds for refusing
to
grant
individual permits to bookmakers. Section 2
of
the
Act
makes it
an
offence for a person to act as a bookmaker on his own
account unless he is the holder
of
apermit authorizing him so to act,
and
s. 3 provides for agents.
The
first schedule to the
Act
contains
the
provisions for the issue
of
the
necessary permits.
In
Scotland
the
responsible authority is the licensing
court
constituted under
the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959. Sections 16 to 19
of
the
first
schedule contain the grounds for refusing to grant or renew a book-
maker's or betting agency permit.
It
is in these conditions
that
we
are
particularly interested at present. Section 16 relates to
both
types
of
permits
and
is peremptory.
It
refers to circumstances under
which
the
authority"
shall"
refuse to grant permits. Section 17,
however, which deals solely with bookmaker's permits, is permissive.
It
provides
that
the authority may refuse the application
if-{a)
they
are
not
satisfied
that
the applicant is a fit
and
proper person to be
the holder
of
apermit, or satisfactory evidence is produced
that
the
applicant is
not
a fit
and
proper
person to hold such apermit.
These provisos appear in s.
17(0)
but
we have split them to under-
line
that
there
appear
to be two separate possibilities here. Section
17(b)
allows the authority to refuse if they are satisfied
that
if
the
permit were granted the business would be carried on for the benefit
of
aperson who would himself have been refused a licence.
In the reported cases the grounds of refusal seem to have been that
the bookmakers were not fit and proper persons to hold licences.
We do
not
need to refer to them in detail
but
they all
appear
in
the
1961, S.L.T. (Sh. Ct. Reports) at pp. 41 to 45.
In
the first case,
Muir,
the
Sheriff in his note pointed
out
that
Muir
had
carried on
abookmaker's business for many years,
but
objection was taken
by
the
ChiefConstable
of
Edinburgh on the ground
that
he
had
three
convictions for breach
of
the
peace in 1955, 1958
and
October, 1960,
366 September-October
To continue reading
Request your trial