5 - Poker as private gaming
29.46. Poker offered as private gaming can take place anywhere to which the public do 💶 not have access, and this would include a workplace. Domestic and residential gaming are two subsets where non-equal chance gaming 💶 is allowed:
Domestic gaming is permitted without the need for permissions if:
it takes place in a private dwelling
it is on a 💶 domestic occasion
no charge or levy is made for playing.
Residential gaming is permitted when:
it takes place in a hall of residence 💶 or hostel not administered in the course of a trade or business
more than 50 percent of the participants are residents.
29.47. 💶 Private gaming can potentially take place on commercial premises in circumstances where a members’ club hires a room in, for 💶 example, a pub or hotel for a private function where equal chance gaming only is played. However, organisers would need 💶 to scrutinise very carefully the arrangements put in place to make sure that the particular area of the pub, hotel 💶 or other venue in which the gaming takes place is not, on the occasion of the private function, a place 💶 to which the public have access and that those participating are not selected by a process which means that, in 💶 fact, they are members of the public rather than members of the club. The law in this area is complex 💶 and organisers should be advised to seek their own legal advice before proceeding with the event.
29.48. It is a condition 💶 of private gaming that no charge (by whatever name called) is made for participation and Schedule 15 to the Act 💶 makes it clear that a deduction from or levy on sums staked or won by participants in gaming is a 💶 charge for participation in the gaming. It is irrelevant whether the charge is expressed to be voluntary or compulsory, particularly 💶 if customers are prevented from playing if they do not make the ‘voluntary’ donation, or there is strong peer pressure 💶 to make the donation. A relevant decided case in another licensing field is that of Cocks v Mayner (1893) 58 💶 JP 104, in which it was found that an omnibus said to be available free of charge but whose passengers 💶 who were invited to (and in some cases did) make a voluntary contribution was ‘plying for hire’ without the appropriate 💶 licence.
29.49. Additionally, the decided cases of Panama (Piccadilly) Ltd v Newberry (1962) 1WLR 610 and Lunn v Colston-Hayter (1991) 155 💶 JP 384 are helpful in guiding local authorities in deciding whether a person ceases to be a member of the 💶 public merely because they have agreed to become a member of a club.
29.50. In the first of these cases (which 💶 related to a strip show), the court said that an applicant for membership of the club and admission to the 💶 show was and remained a member of the public, as the whole purpose (of membership) was to get members of 💶 the public to see the show and there was no sufficient segregation or selection to cause an applicant to cease 💶 to be a member of the public and to acquire a different status as a member of a club on 💶 signing his application form and paying the charge. In the second (which related to an acid house party), the judge 💶 said that it was impossible, merely because of the existence of a formal scheme of club membership enforced to the 💶 extent of requiring tickets to be obtained 24-hours in advance of the event, to regard those who obtained such membership 💶 and tickets as having ceased to be members of the public.
29.51. This means that people joining a club to attend 💶 and take part in a ‘private’ event are likely to remain members of the public, particularly if ‘club membership’ is 💶 acquired only a short time before, and in order to attend the event.
Previous section
Poker as non-commercial gaming
Next section
Advertising
