The Gaming Act 1845 (8 & 9 Vict., c. 109) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Act's principle provision was to deem a wager unenforceable as a legal contract. The Act received Royal Assent on August 8, 1845. Sections 17 and 18, though amended, remained in force until 1 September 2007.
[edit] Background
Increasing concern as to the damaging social effects of gambling[2] gave rise to a select committee of the House of Commons whose recommendations were implemented by the Act.[3] The policy of the Act was to discourage betting.[4]
However, following a 2001 report by Sir Alan Budd,[5] in 2002, the UK government accepted that wagers should cease to he unenforceable as contracts, seeking to introduce a new liberalised regulatory regime in order to encourage the gambling industry.[6]
[edit] Gambling contracts deemed void (s.18)
The Act provided that:
All contracts or agreements, whether by parole or in writing, by way of gaming or wagering, shall be null and void; and no suit shall be brought or maintained in any court of law and equity for recovering any sum of money or valuable thing alleged to be won upon any wager, or which shall have been deposited in the hands of any person to abide the event on which any wager shall have been made: Provided always, that this enactment shall not be deemed to apply to any subscription or contribution, or agreement to subscribe or contribute, for or towards any plate, prize, or sum of money to be awarded to the winner or winners of any lawful game, sport, pastime, or exercise.
However, a bet on the The Tote did not fall within the scope of the Act.[7]
Further, by the 1980s, it was feared that complex commercial risk management instruments and contracts, such as derivatives could fall foul of the Act. Provision was made that a contract would not be void if at least one of the parties entered into it for legitimate business purposes.[8][9] The exemption is now found in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 s 412.[10]
[edit] Cheating at play (s.17)
The Act provided that it was a crime to:
... by any fraud or unlawful device or ill practice in playing at or with cards, dice, tables, or other game, or in bearing a part in the stakes, wages, or adventures, or in betting on the sides or hands of them that do play, or in wagering on the event of any game, sport, pastime, or exercise, win from any other person to himself, or any other or others, any sum of money or valuable thing ...
In 2005, Kwong Lee, Martin Fitz and Shuhal Miah were found guilty of cheating at roulette under this section.[11]
[edit] Ireland and Northern Ireland
The Act was in force in Ireland until partition. It consequently became the law of the Irish Free State on 6 December 1922, and then of its successor states. When the autonomous region of Northern Ireland seceded from the Irish Free State and rejoined the United Kingdom on 7 December 1922, the Act became the law of Northern Ireland until repeal.
[edit] References
- ^ Gambling Act 2005 (Commencement No. 6 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2006, SI 2007/3272, art.2(4)
- ^ Miers (2002) p.20
- ^ House of Commons (1844)
- ^ Hill v. William Hill (Park Lane) Limited [1949] AC 530, at 548 per Viscount Simon
- ^ Budd (2001)
- ^ Gambling Review (2002) 4.7/ r.108
- ^ Tote Investors v Smoker [1968] 1 QB 509
- ^ Financial Services Act 1986, s.63
- ^ Schwartz, R. J. & Smith, C. W. (1997). Derivatives Handbook: Risk Management and Control. Wiley. pp. p.183. ISBN 0471157651. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VZ_-B7d6ghIC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&ots=c3uM0lfmKq&sig=7vOAKFHIBAcu02WKXQ1ft32xfOY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA183,M1.
- ^ 412.— Gaming contracts. (1) No contract to which this section applies is void or unenforceable because of– (a) Article 170 of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985; or (2) This section applies to a contract if– (a) it is entered into by either or each party by way of business; (b) the entering into or performance of it by either party constitutes an activity of a specified kind or one which falls within a specified class of activity; and (c) it relates to an investment of a specified kind or one which falls within a specified class of investment. (3) Part II of Schedule 2 applies for the purposes of subsection (2)(c), with the references to section 22 being read as references to that subsection. (4) Nothing in Part II of Schedule 2, as applied by subsection (3), limits the power conferred by subsection (2)(c). (5) “Investment” includes any asset, right or interest. (6) “Specified” means specified in an order made by the Treasury.
- ^ "Trapped by a sting that won too much" (HTML). TimesOnline. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/incomingFeeds/article1293306.ece. Retrieved 2007-08-04. - this article implies that the three were the first to be convicted under the Act but many cases are cited in Richardson, P.J. (ed.) (2007). Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice. London: Sweet & Maxwell. pp. 22-70. ISBN 0-421-94830-2.
[edit] Bibliography
- Birley, D. (1993). Sport and the Making of Britain. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. p.204. ISBN 071903759X. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qVQiOYkBvV8C&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=who+introduced+the+Gaming+Act+1845+into+parliament%3F&source=web&ots=1YzOhlvsUA&sig=ZHYJg4lPLOg1O5yenbpoZ9O5-Sg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result. (Google Books)
- Budd, A (2001) Gambling Review Report, Department for Culture, Media and Sport
- Gambling Review (2002) A Safe Bet for Success Cm.5397
- House of Commons (1844) Report from the Select Committee on Gaming HC1844/297
- Miers, D. (2004). Regulating Commercial Gambling: Past, Present, and Future. London: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199276153.
- Smith, C. & Monckom, S. (2001). Smith and Monckom's The Law of Betting, Gaming and Lotteries. London: LexisNexis. ISBN 0406903131.
