Attorney General (McGrath) v Healy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judgment Date: 04 February 1972
• Docket Number: [1971. No. 244 SS.]
• Date: 04 February 1972

Attorney General (McGrath) v. Healy

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (at the Prosecution of Superintendent B. M. McGrath)

Complainant

and

JOHN HEALY

Defendant.

[1971. No. 244 SS.]

Criminal Law - Lottery - Bingo - Prize-winner selected by game of chance and the answering of a question - Whether defendant had promoted a lottery - Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956 (No. 2), ss. 2, 21.

The defendant was prosecuted and convicted in the District Court for having promoted a lottery contrary to the provisions of s. 21 of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956. The defendant had promoted the game of Bingo which was a game of chance, and a lottery, but had added a further rule to the game by requiring that a successful player should not become a prize-winner without giving the proper reply to a question which required a certain amount of skill to be exercised by the person answering it correctly. The defendant had submitted that the element of skill required in the game devised and promoted by him prevented it from being a lottery. At the hearing in the High Court of a Case stated by the District Justice it was

Held by Pringle J., in upholding the conviction, 1, that the prize in a lottery need not be a sum of money.

2. That the first part of the game promoted by the defendant had been a lottery since it had been a game involving the distribution of a prize by chance—the prize being the opportunity to win a sum of money by answering correctly a comparatively simple question.

Bolger v. Doherty [1970] I.R. 233 considered.

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Bradfute & Associates Ltd. [1967] 2 Q.B. 291 approved.

Case Stated.

The Case was stated on the 24th July, 1971, by District Justice Hugh C. McGahon pursuant to s. 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857, as amended by s. 51 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, on the application of the defendant. The following statement of facts is taken from the judgment of Pringle J., infra.

The Case arose out of the hearing in the District Court of a complaint that the defendant did on the 14th December, 1970, at the Starlight Ballroom, Carraghbeg, Westport, County Mayo, promote a lottery contrary to s. 21, sub-s. 1, of the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, which provides that:— "No person shall promote or assist in promoting a lottery." Garda Mark Gormley gave evidence that on the day in question he visited the Starlight Ballroom, Westport, where a game, described as "Check-a-Quiz", was being held. He said that there was a large number of people entering the hall, that there were three cash boxes at the front entrance of the hall, and that people were paying their entrance fees at these boxes, the fees being 10/- for one book of tickets, or 14/- for a double book. At about 9.20 p.m. the defendant came to the stage in the hall and told the people present, numbering about 600, that the game that night was a game of skill and not Bingo, and that any person checking on a winning number would have to answer a question, put by the defendant to the winner, before he would qualify for a prize. The Guard said that the game then proceeded and that it operated on the same lines, and by the same method, as in games of Bingo1 at which he was present in the same hall on previous occasions, save that any person who would have qualified to win a prize in the normal game of Bingo was asked a question by the defendant and, if that person failed to give a correct answer, this disqualified such person from receipt of the prize which was a monetary prize ranging in amount from £5 to £30. While the Guard remained in the hall about 25 people "checked" as winners, subject to answering a question; three of them failed to give the correct answer to a question put to them by the defendant and these three did not receive a prize.

According to the Guard, the questions put to the 25 people were quite simple, and he instanced the following:—

• (1) What is the name of the Mountain in Mayo climbed each year?

• (2) The President of Ireland, his first name is Eamonn, what is his second name?

• (3) Where is the All-Ireland football match played each year?

• (4) The river that flows through Westport is called The Mall. What other name is it known by?

• (5) Can you enter Achill Island by land?

At the hearing of the complaint Mr. R. Mackey, counsel for the defendant, did not contest the issue that the game as played, save for the qualification test involved in the

question-and-answer process, was the ordinary game of Bingo in respect of which a licence under the Act would, but for the test, be required; neither did he contest the fact that the defendant did not operate the game by virtue of such a licence. He contended, however, that to constitute a lottery the process involved must be essentially a matter in which the outcome depends on chance, and that the introduction of the question-and-answer process in the game operated, on the occasion in question, to place this game in the realm of a game of skill and that, accordingly, it was not a lottery. Mr. John McHale, State solicitor, who appeared for the...