House of Lords
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836903300105 |
| Date | 01 January 1969 |
| Published date | 01 January 1969 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
House
of
Lords
WHEN
MAY FRUIT-MACHINES BE
UNLAWFUL?
Fox
v.
Adamson
FOR some years the appellants in
Fox
o,
Adamson
(1968, 3 W.L.R.
416)
had
lawfully carried on various gaming activities in their
club, which
had
complied with all the requirements of ss, 32 and 33
of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. These gaming
activities
had
included the operation of two fruit-machines which
gave money prizes which exceeded one shilling.
The
appellants
then obtained from the local authority apermit under Schedule 6
of the Act authorising them to instal six more gaming machines.
This they proceeded to do,
but
they also carried on the hitherto
existing gaming facilities, including the operation of the two fruit-
machines. Thereupon, informations were obtained against them
for contravening the conditions laid down in
S.49(3)
(c)
of the Act,
namely
"that
no money prize is distributed or offered which exceeds
one shilling".
The
justices held (and their opinion was upheld by the
Divisional Court: 1968, 2 W.L.R. 42) that, although the original
gaming activities were within the terms of ss, 32 and 33 of the Act,
they were also "amusements with prizes" within s.49 and must
therefore comply with the conditions in that section.
Upon appeal to the House of Lords, the appellants argued that
s.49 of the Act was permissive and did not make unlawful gambling
which was lawful under other sections of the Act: Parliament could
not have intended
that
the grant
of
apermit in respect
of
premises
must automatically bring all gaming on those premises within the
scope ofs.49, even though it was legal by virtue of'ss.gz and 33. They
argued, further,
that
the two fruit-machines in particular were not
"amusements with prizes" within s.49.
The
prosecution argued that
s.49 expressly excluded the operation of the "legalising" effects
of 88. 32 and 33 from premises in respect of which a permit was
granted
and
that
the fruit-machines
(inter
alia)
were "amusements
with prizes" within s.49.
In
upholding the conviction, the Divisional
Court
had
certified the following points of law; (i) whether the
machines
(inter
alia)
were amusements with prizes within S.49; and
(ii) whether the effect of s.49 was to establish a separate code in
41
To continue reading
Request your trial