swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Licensing - From: 1970 To: 1979
This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Yates v Gates; 1970 - [1970] RTR 135
Sopp v Long [1970] 1 QB 525
1970
Licensing, Crime
A short measure was sold by the local manageress and the non-resident licensee was prosecuted for contravening section 24(1). Held: It was agreed that only the licensee could sell through his servant the barmaid. On his behalf it was contended, unsuccessfully, that he could not have caused a short measure to be delivered unless he knew of or had authorised that act.
Weights and Measures Act 1963 24(1)
1 Citers
Regina v Gaming Board for Great Britain, ex Parte Benaim [1970] EWCA Civ 7; [1970] 2 QB 417; [1970] 2 All ER 528; [1970] 2 WLR 1009
23 Mar 1970
CA
Lord Denning MR, Wilberforce L, Phillimore LJ
Licensing, Natural Justice
A Gaming Club, Crockfords, sought the restoration of its gaming licence. It had historically found ways of circumventing the earlier Gaming Acts restrictions. The 1968 Act created the Gaming Board to assess their probity. They challenged the refusal saying that the hearing had not observed the rules of natural justice.
Lord Denning MR said: "Seeing the evils that have led to this legislation, the Board can and should investigate the credentials of those who make application to them. They can and should receive information from the police in this country or abroad, who know something of them. They can, and should, receive information from any other reliable source. Much of it will be confidential. But that does not mean that the applicants are not to be given a chance of answering it. They must be given the chance, subject to this qualification? I do not think they need tell the applicant the source of their information, if that would put their informant in peril: or otherwise be contrary to the public interest. Even in a criminal trial, a witness cannot be asked who is his informer. "
Gaming Act 1960 - Gaming Act 1963 - Gaming Act 1968
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, ex parte Kayne-Levenson [1975] QB 431
1975
CA
Lawton LJ
Licensing, Local Government
There is a clear public interest in the regulation of street markets.
1 Citers
Carter v Bradbeer; HL 1975 - [1975] 1 WLR 1204
Carter v Bradbeer; QBD 1975 - [1975] 1 WLR 665
Regina v Herrod, ex parte Leeds City District Council [1976] QB 540
1976
CA
Lord Denning MR
Licensing, Judicial Review
Lord Denning MR described the game bingo: 'I expect that everybody knows ordinary bingo. It is played at bazaars, sales of work [sic: in [1976] 1 All ER 273, at 279c, the phrase is 'places of work'], and so forth, for small prizes and is perfectly lawful. Now prize bingo is like ordinary bingo, but played with sophisticated apparatus. Instead of cards with numbers on them, there are dials facing the players. A player puts in a coin (5p for two cards). Thereupon two dials light up showing numbers corresponding to two cards. When the game starts, instead of someone drawing a number out of a hat, a machine throws a ball into the air. A gaily dressed lady plucks one of them and calls out the number. If it is one of the numbers on the dial, the player crosses it out by pulling a cover over it. If he gets all his numbers crossed out correctly before the other players, he gets a prize. This is obviously a lottery or a game of chance, but it is not a "gaming machine" because the element of chance is not "provided by means of the machine" but means of the gay lady: see section 26(2) of the Gaming Act 1968.
In some of these premises there are also some "one-armed bandits." These are gaming machines. The player puts in a coin. This enables him to pull a handle to forecast a result. Cylinders revolve and give an answer. If he succeeds, he gets the winnings. If he fails, he loses his money. This is undoubtedly a "gaming machine" because the element of chance is provided by means of a machine: see section 26(1) of the Act of 1968 and Capper v. Baldwin [1965] 2 QB 53.'
Lord Denning MR said: "If a person comes to the High Court seeking certiorari to quash the decision of the Crown Court - or any other tribunal for that matter-he should act promptly and before the other party has taken any step on the faith of the decision. Else he may find that the High Court will refuse him a remedy. If he has been guilty of any delay at all, it is for him to get over it and not for the other side'."
1 Citers
