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
