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
