Stacey v Wilkins

Stacey v Wilkins

Bromham and Others v Wilkins

LEISURE AND LICENSING

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

LORD GODDARD LCJ, HUMPHREYS AND HENN COLLINS JJ

28 JANUARY 1946

Gaming and Wagering – Private lottery – Promotion and conduct – Breach of statutory conditions – Names and addresses of promoters on tickets – Liability

of printer – Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934 (c 58), ss 21, 22, 24.

A lottery, restricted to members of a branch of the British Legion, was promoted by the sports and entertainments committee of the branch, who employed the

first appellant to print the tickets. The promoters of the lottery were stated on the tickets to be the sports and entertainments committee of the branch and the

sports secretary, who alone was referred to by name. Sect 24(2)(d) of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, requires that in the case of a private lottery every

ticket should bear on the face of it the name and address of each of the promoters. The first appellant was convicted under the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934,

s 22(1)(a), of printing tickets for use in a lottery. The second appellants, who were members of the executive committee of the branch were convicted under

sect 22(1)(g) of the Act, of aiding and procuring the sports secretary to contravene that section:—

Held – (i) The lottery was a private lottery within the definition in sect 24(1) of the Act and was, therefore, a lawful lottery.

(ii) the statement that the promoters were a committee was not a sufficient compliance with sect 24(2)(d).

(iii) the offences, if any, committed by all the appellants were offences under sect 24 of the Act, of conducting a private, ie, a lawful, lottery in a wrong

manner.

(iv) no offence was committed by any of the appellants under sect 22 of the Act which deals with unlawful lotteries, and the convictions should,

All England Law Reports 1936 - books on screen™

All ER 1946 Volume 1

Preamble

therefore, be quashed.

Notes

The object of the provision of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, that in the case of private lotteries the names and addresses of all the promoters must appear

on the tickets is to insure that if any question of prosecution arises it may be known who should be summoned. The name of every member of a committee

who is a promoter should, therefore, appear, while in the case of a persona juridica the corporate name would presumably be sufficient. A private lottery does

not cease to be private by reason of breach of this condition, and a prosecution under sect 22 of the Act is, therefore, held to fail, since the defence that the

lottery is lawful as being private is still open, notwithstanding the irregularity in the disclosure of names for which a punishment is provided by sect 4.

For the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, ss 21, 22 and 24, see Halsbury’s Statutes, Vol 27, pp 289–292.

Appeal

Appeal by way of case stated against convictions by the justices of the county borough of Port Talbot for offences under the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, s

22. The facts are fully set out in the judgment of Lord Goddard LCJ.

Vernon Gattie for the first appellant.

G R F Morris for the second appellants.

Ralph Sutton KC and D Morgan Evans for the respondent.

28 January 1946. The following judgments were delivered.

LORD GODDARD LCJ. We will give judgment with regard to the printer first in this case.

This is a case stated by the justices of Port Talbot in respect of the conviction of a printer under an information taken against him under the Betting and

Lotteries Act, 1934, s 22. It appears from the case that a lottery was promoted by the sports and entertainment committee of the British Legion, Briton Ferry

Branch Benevolent Fund, and apparently the committee, or some members of the committee, employed the appellant, Stacey, who is a printer, to print tickets

for use in that lottery. The charge against him was that he “in connection with a certain lottery known as ‘British Legion Briton Ferry,’ promoted at Briton

Ferry, unlawfully did print certain tickets for use in the said lottery contrary to the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, s 22.” He was convicted and fined £10.

􀂭 293􀀉

The material sections are these: sect 21 of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, provides:

‘Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, all lotteries are unlawful.’

Sect 22(1), which is the section under which he was convicted, provides:

‘Subject to the provisions of this section, every person who in connection with any lottery promoted or proposed to be promoted either in Great

Britain or elsewhere (a) prints any tickets for use in the lottery … shall be guilty of an offence.’

Under subsect 2 it is provided:

‘In any proceedings instituted under the preceding subsection it shall be a defence to prove that the lottery to which the proceedings relate was such

a lottery as is declared by any subsequent section of this Part of this Act not to be an unlawful lottery, and that at the date of the alleged offence the

defendant believed, and had reasonable ground for believing, that none of the conditions required by that section to be observed in connection with the

promotion and conduct of the lottery had been broken.’

Then by sect 24(1) it is provided:

‘In this section, the expression “private lottery” means a lottery in Great Britain which is promoted for, and in which the sale of tickets or chances by

the promoters is confined to, either (a) members of one society established and conducted for purposes not connected with gaming, wagering or lotteries

… and which is promoted by persons each of whom is a person to whom under the foregoing provisions tickets or chances may be sold by the

promoters and, in the case of a lottery promoted for the members of a society, is a person authorised in writing by the governing body of the society to

promote the lottery.’

Then under subsect (2) there are certain conditions which have to be observed for the conduct of a private lottery, and one of them (d) is that:

‘… every ticket shall bear upon the face of it the name and address of each of the promoters and a statement of the persons to whom the sale of

tickets or chances by the promoters is restricted, and a statement that no prize won in the lottery shall be paid or delivered by the promoters to any

person other than the person to whom the winning ticket or chance was sold by them, and no prize shall be paid or delivered except in accordance with

that statement.’

The first thing to observe is that the magistrates have found, among other things, that tickets were sold by persons connected with this lottery to persons

outside those to whom under the statute it was lawful to sell them, and that offence was committed by certain persons. The main charge against the printer

was that the name and address of each of the promoters was not printed on the ticket, but it is important to observe, that the magistrates apparently accepted

the contention of the prosecution that because offences had been committed by persons in selling these tickets to people to whom they were not entitled to sell

them, the printer became liable for that. So far as that is concerned, the court has no hesitation in saying that the justices came to a wrong conclusion; but the

point we have to consider first is whether or not the requirement that “every ticket shall bear upon the face of it the name and address of each of the

promoters” was complied with in this case. That is a point upon which it is no doubt important that this court should express an opinion for the purpose of

All England Law Reports 1936 - books on screen™

All ER 1946 Volume 1

Preamble

giving guidance to printers and those responsible for seeing that the Betting and Lotteries Act is properly complied with and enforced.

The tickets in this case had these words printed on them: “Sale of these tickets confined and restricted to members of the British Legion, Briton Ferry,

Matches played,” and so on, and the prizes are set out. Then: “Promoters: The British Legion Sports and Entertainments Committee for the British Legion,

Briton Ferry Branch Benevolent Fund. O D Richards, Sports Secretary”; and that is the only name and address that is given of a promoter or promoters.

It seems to be perfectly clear from the facts found by the justices, and the tickets themselves, that this was a private lottery, but one of the conditions of

conducting a private lottery is that every ticket shall bear on the face of it the name and address of each of the promoters. It has been pointed out by counsel

for the respondent that the object Parliament must be deemed to have had in mind at that time was that those who are responsible for seeing that the Betting

and Lotteries Act is carried out, or that illegal lotteries under it are suppressed shall know who are the promoters of these private lotteries which are made

legal, so that if there is any question of the legality or otherwise, it should be 􀂭 294􀀉 known who are the people to be summoned; and in my opinion it is not

possible to say that a statement that the promoters are a committee is a sufficient compliance with the section. If the promoters were a corporate body, no

doubt it would be enough to give the name of the company or other corporate body which was action as promoter, but where it is a committee it can only be

the members of the committee who are the promoters, and, therefore, the names of the members of the committee who are the promoters must be given on the

ticket. It does not follow that every member of the committee was a promoter; some of the members of the committee may have refused to sanction the

lottery, in which case they would not be promoters.

It therefore appears to the court that the condition as to the names and addresses of the promoters was not complied with in this case. But a further

difficulty arises here, and that is whether or not the offence for which this defendant was summoned was made out. As I have already pointed out, he was

summoned under sect 22(2). There it is a defence for him to show that it was not an unlawful lottery, and this clearly was not an unlawful lottery because it

was a private lottery as defined by sect 24. Then it is said that he is also to show that “at the date of the alleged offence the defendant believed, and had

reasonable ground for believing, that none of the conditions required by that section to be observed in connection with the promotion and conduct of the

lottery had been broken”; nor had they at the time of the alleged offence. What he might have been summoned for was for an offence under sect 24(3), which

provides:

‘If any of the conditions specified in the preceding subsection is broken, each of the promoters of the lottery, and where the person by whom the

condition is broken is not one of the promoters … [and the printer is not one of the promoters]… that person also, shall be guilty of an offence.’

The offence, if any, which he committed, therefore, was in breaking one of the conditions, namely, the condition that the ticket should bear on the face of it the

name and address of each of the promoters. Therefore, though he might have been convicted of an offence under sect 24(3), in my opinion it is quite clear that

he did not commit an offence under sect 22(1).

I think the confusion which perhaps has arisen in this case is due to the fact that it has not been borne in mind that if the lottery is a private lottery, it

ceases to be an unlawful lottery, and it does not cease to be a private lottery because one of the conditions in sect 24 is broken; that is an offence of conducting

a private lottery, that is to say, a lawful lottery, in a wrong manner. That was the offence that was committed here, and it was not the offence for which the

defendant was summoned. Therefore, so far as the printer is concerned, this appeal must succeed and the conviction be quashed.

HUMPHREYS J. I agree with the judgment of my Lord, and on the main point, which is the first point, I have nothing to add.

With regard to the second point, I think some assistance may be derived from a glance at sect 23 of the Act, the question here being whether by breaking

one of the conditions mentioned in sect 24(1)(d) the printer has committed the offence of printing tickets for use in a lottery which, as the result of sect 1

means an unlawful lottery, or whether what the person is responsible for is the offence of printing tickets which do not comply with the requirements of

subsect (2)(d), that being a separate offence. Very much the same thing is said in sect 23. It provides for the exemption of what are called small lotteries

incidental to certain entertainments. There, also, persons who promote, as an incident of certain entertainments, what would be an unlawful lottery, are not to

be prosecuted because a lottery so promoted is not an unlawful lottery; and again I find words “but the conditions specified in the next succeeding subsection

shall be observed,” and then: “every person concerned in the promotion or conduct of the lottery shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that the offence

was committed without his knowledge.” I think those are words which make it quite beyond question that what is being done is to create a new offence, and

therefore a specific defence is supplied for the person who can avail himself of it, namely, that he was unaware that the offence was being committed.

􀂭 295􀀉

For that reason, as well as the reasons which have been stated by my Lord, I agree also with the second part of the judgment and with the conclusion.

HENN COLLINS J agreed.

The appeals by the second appellants, (members of the executive committee of the Briton Ferry Branch of the British Legion) against convictions under

sect 22(1)(g) of the Act, were allowed, after brief argument, on the ground that they, too, should have been summoned, if at all, under sect 24 of the Act.

Appeals allowed with costs.

Solicitors: Sharpe, Pritchard & Co agents for T D Windsor Williams, Neath (for the appellant Stacey); Arnold Carter & Co agents for Harold L Roberts,

Briton Ferry (for the appellants Bromham and others); Torr & Co agents for Richard John, Cardiff (for the respondent).

C StJ Nicholson Esq Barrister.

[1946] 1 All ER 296