| Gambling Bill
|
|
Mr. Moss: The clause deals with cheating but it does not define exactly what we mean by that; there is no definition of it in the Bill. Instead, the clause refers to the committing of an offence if one ''cheats at gambling'' or enables or assists another person to do the same. Of course, cheating can take the form of obtaining an advantage in the playing of a game, but it Column Number: 228 should also capture those aspects of illegally acquiring moneys from games which are not currently captured, for example, by legislation on theft. For instance, I am informed that the selling of picklocks or other devices that can be used to remove moneys from gaming machines is not currently caught by UK legislation. The amendment seeks to address that defect.Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD): As you will see, Mr. Gale, I have also tabled an amendment that deals with cheating. The Committee will be well aware that the clause provides for a criminal offence of cheating at gambling and repeals the old offence of cheating in section 17 of the Gaming Act 1845. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Bill provides no definition of ''cheating'', but it is assumed, and the explanatory notes tell us, that it
As the Committee will be well aware, however, the Bill is based on the examination by the Government, the Joint Committee and others of what has happened in other countries. The Minister has told us on a number of occasions that lessons have been learned, for example, from what has happened in Australia. The reason for moving the amendment is that one lesson has not been learned from some states in Australia and, indeed, from South Africa, whose legislation includes provision similar to that incorporated in the amendment.
10.15 amClause 39 already provides for an offence of cheating. The amendment would make it a criminal offence for a person to have in their possession in a casino a computer, camera or similar device that would enable them to predict the outcome of a game or otherwise obtain an unfair advantage. The Minister may say that such a situation is already covered in the clause, but some states in Australia and South Africa have found it necessary to incorporate that issue relating to cheating as part of their legislation. They have not thought it appropriate to leave it to be dealt with by the type of wording to which the Minister refers. I look forward to what he has to say and I shall listen carefully. If I do not receive an absolute assurance that these issues are covered, I may wish to press the amendment to a vote. The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman, if I may gently remind him, referred to moving the amendment. He will appreciate that the amendment is grouped. I am sure that if he wishes to press it to a vote, he will find a way to let the Chairman know. Mr. Hawkins: I want to comment briefly on what the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has said, because I can certainly understand the importance of his point about a gap that may have been left in the Bill, in the light of experience in Australia and South Africa. I see a certain merit in proposing something along the lines of amendment No. 310, but I am concerned about the precise way in which it has been drafted. It would be unwise, in an amendment to such a Bill, to introduce Column Number: 229 the concept of putting the burden of proof on to the defendant. I see that the hon. Gentleman nodding. It is far better to leave issues about the burden of proof to fall as they usually do in the criminal law. If the amendment just said ''without reasonable excuse'' and did not contain the words in brackets about reversing the burden of proof, I would be a great deal happier.Let me explain what I think is the other weakness in the hon. Gentleman's drafting. We might all regard the recording, analysing or predicting of cards or the outcome of a game as cheating, but I am not so sure whether that applies to analysing the strategy for playing a game. I realise that he is talking about articles taken into a casino, such as computers and so on, but it seems to me that there is a big difference between cheating by way of analysing what cards other players hold and trying in some way to control the outcome of a game, and analysing probabilities and strategies. That might be regarded as something that intelligent people would want to do. Whether people should be allowed to have technological help is the point that the amendment deals with specifically, but I think that there is a difference between having things that enable someone to look at another player's cards, and things that are purely about probability and strategy. I make that point gently to the hon. Gentleman. My main concern is that we should not try to introduce by way of an amendment to this Bill something as crucially significant to the criminal law as reversing the burden of proof. I have one further point—about words having their normal and natural meaning. I am not convinced that it is wise in this Bill to leave ''cheating'' undefined. That will lead to a lot of open questions in the courts. It is said that juries are good at deciding whether a person is honest or dishonest, but if the types of cheating that the Government have in mind were to be defined in the Bill, that might be helpful at criminal trials of the kind in which I used to prosecute and defend. I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bath that it is wise to leave words to their normal and natural meaning. That will make it difficult for judges to give directions to juries so that they are clear about what they are supposed to be deciding in any trial based on this legislation, if it stays in its current form. Mr. Caborn: Picklocks that are supplied for the purpose of stealing are covered in clause 39(1)(b). I am pleased that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has raised the matter. The case earlier in the year at the Ritz was among those that highlighted legitimate concerns about the effectiveness of the proposed new offence of cheating. It would be wrong for me to go into that case, but we did think carefully about the use of electronic equipment to narrow the odds in casino games, and whether we needed to strengthen the offence in the Bill. We concluded that the cheating clause covered everything that we would want to stop: a gambler who does anything that unfairly increases his chances of winning is cheating and is therefore covered.
Column Number: 230 To be more specific about what is cheating and what is not would make the clause too complicated. There is also a danger in trying to draw too rigid a line, as circumstances can vary so much. There is an art to playing many games, and we should not do anything that puts at risk a person who properly tries to use his skills to maximise his chances of winning. A person who goes beyond that, and acts in an underhand or unfair way, will be cheating and will be covered by the offence.There is an important role in that area for the commission in that it can impose conditions on the operating licence that deal with the detail of regulation—here we differ from Australia in the way in which we deal with particular risks. One objective of licensing is fairness. Therefore, the commission might reasonably prevent licensees from allowing customers to use electronic prediction devices in casinos and on other premises. In matters as detailed and complex as this, I would ask the hon. Member for Bath to leave it to the good sense of the commission to decide when to interfere and when to leave well alone. Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Minister, and I am listening to him carefully. Will he acknowledge that there is a significant difference between the gambling commission's using the licensing process to require casinos not to allow people in with cameras, recording devices or whatever, and the casino operators themselves wanting such a prohibition and to be sure that they will not find themselves in difficulties if they impose such a ban or bring charges against an individual, even if the gambling commission has not placed a requirement on them to ban such pieces of equipment? Mr. Caborn: The case would have to be made that something was unfairly increasing the chances of winning, and could therefore be defined as cheating. We considered the matter in the context of the Ritz case and others, and we believe that the measures in the Bill adequately protect both customers and operators and make it possible to identify cheats. Licensing is part of that protection, but the gambling commission will also have wider powers that will enable it to intervene in cases of cheating. The powers are there, and the definition in the Bill gives the commission scope to deal with present circumstances and any that might occur in future in relation to electronic gadgetry. The Bill is as safe as it can be. Mr. Moss: I am not sure what the hon. Member for Bath thinks about the Minister's response, but I still have some doubts as to whether the Government are that confident about their definition of cheating. The Minister did not address the issue that I raised about picklocks, which are devices that can be fixed to gaming machines. Mr. Caborn: The first thing that I said was that picklocks used for the purpose of stealing are covered by clause 39(1)(b), which applies to
Column Number: 231
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made: No. 28, in clause 39, page 18, line 7, leave out subsection (4). —[Mr. Caborn.] Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 30 November 2004 |
