Regina v. Burt and Adams Ltd. (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)), (1998)
Linked as:
Extract
Regina v. Burt and Adams Ltd. (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)), (1998)
HOUSE OF LORDSLord Goff of ChieveleyLord Lloyd of BerwickLord NolanLord HoffmannLord Hope of CraigheadOPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSEREGINAv.BURT & ADAMS LTD(RESPONDENTS)(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINALDIVISION)ON 2 APRIL 1998LORD GOFF OF CHIEVELEYMy Lords,I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Hope of Craighead. For the reasons he gives I would dismiss the appeal and answer the question in the negative.LORD LLOYD OF BERWICKMy Lords,I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Hope of Craighead. I agree with his reasons, and conclusion, and gratefully adopt his description of the two types of amusement machine with which this case is concerned. For convenience I set out here section 34(3) of the Gaming Act 1968, so far as relevant:"Except as provided by subsections (4) and (9) of this section, in respect of any one game played by means of the machine no player or person claiming under a player shall receive, or shall be entitled to receive, any article, benefit or advantage other than one (and only one) of the following, that is to say(a) . . .(b) a non-monetary prize or prizes of a value or aggregate value not exceeding £6 or a token exchangeable only for such a non-monetary prize or such non-monetary prizes;(c) a money prize not exceeding £3 together with a non-monetary prize of a value which does not exceed £6 less the amount of the money prize, or a token exchangeable only for such a combination of a money prize and a non-money prize; . . .In count 2 of the indictment the defendants were charged with contravening section 34(3)(b) on the ground that a successful player on the Crane and Grab machine was entitled to receive "an article benefit or advantage" in excess of what is permitted under the subsection, namely, "an article to be used as a token which could be exchanged with other such tokens for a non-monetary prize to a value in excess of £6." The article in question was a teddy bear worth £6 or less. At an early stage of the appeal Mr. Goldring Q.C., for the Crown, was asked what would be the position if the successful player, having won a brown teddy bear, was allowed to exchange it for another teddy bear of different colour but the same value. Mr. Goldring replied that in such a case the police would be unlikely to prosecute. One was glad to hear it.By the end of the argument he had conceded, correctly in my view, that the right to exchange one teddy bear for anothe...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
