Recent Judicial Decisions
| Author | J. C. Wood |
| Published date | 01 December 1967 |
| Date | 01 December 1967 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X6704001212 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
1.
C.
WOOD,
LL.M.
The University
of
Sheffield
Legal Correspondent of
THE
POLICE JOURNAL
WHAT IS GAMING?
McCollom v. Wrightson [1967] 3 AllE.R. 257 Divisional Court
The defendant was holder of an on licence at premises known
as Hotel Cottages. On three Sundays he organized free bingo
on the premises. There were various articles as prizes - not
intoxicating liquor. The defendant was charged with offences
If
the holder of a justices' licence suffers any game to be played in the
premises in such circumstances
that
an offence under
Part
2 of the
Betting, Gaming
and
Lotteries Act, 1963, is committed
...
he shall be
liable
...
[to a penalty].
The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act,1963, s. 34(1) provides:
. . . if any person takes
part
in gaming in any street or in any other
place to which, whether on payment or otherwise the public have access,
he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine
...
Gaming is defined in s. 55(1} of this Act
as:
...
the playing of a game of chance for winnings in money or money's
worth.
The apparently simple point to be decided, when the prosecutor
appealed against the magistrates' dismissal of the charges, was
whether free bingo for prizes is gaming under these provisions.
Lord Parker, the Lord Chief Justice, felt that there were two
propositions to consider. Firstly it was clear, before the statutory
game must involve the risk of losing as well as the chance of
winning. This was made absolutely clear in several cases, notably
Lockwood v. Cooper [1903] 2 K.B. 429. Secondly a game in-
volves playing for money or money's worth. The real problem
posed by this case was the absence of the possibility of loss.
Before the various recent statutes this would clearly have taken
the matter outside the realm of gaming. The question was
whether the position had been changed. Lord Parker supported
the reasoning of the magistrates who had taken the view that the
hazard of losing must be present. A rather wider argument,
December 1967 577
To continue reading
Request your trial