Applying Gambling Act To Underage Offender Law Essay

July 20, 2017 Law

Introduction

Mr Ian Gamble who is 15 old ages of age has been summonsed to look at the Local Court for an offense against the Gambling Act. Mr Gamble was apprehended by a police officer in a betting store shortly after holding placed a stake. The important fact is to place if Mr Gamble is guilty of the offense when the Act states prosecution applies to individuals under 18 old ages who are found in the locality of a betting store.

Legal Problem

The facts are:

Ian Gamble is 15 old ages old.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Mr Gamble entered a suburban betting store and placed a stake.

Mr Gamble was apprehended by a police officer inside the store after he had placed the stake.

Mr Gamble was questioned about the affair and the police officer so decided to put an information.

Mr Gamble received a biddings two hebdomads subsequently to look at the Local Court for an offense against the Gambling Act.

The issue is whether Mr Gamble is guilty of the offense when he was apprehended ‘in ‘ the betting store whereas the Act lone prohibits under-age individuals being in the ‘vicinity ‘ of a betting store. Auxiliary issues may include whether or non the betting store is apt for actions of staff member ‘s in leting Mr Gamble to put the stake.

Mr Gamble should be advised that there are several statutory reading methods which the tribunal may see in order to decide the legal job. The statutory reading methods are:

Actual Approach This is applied by concentrating on the existent words and phrases used and their natural significance. If the significance is clear so this is the appropriate attack that a tribunal will utilize.

Golden Rule If by construing the statute law through the actual attack an absurd or inconsistent significance occurs so this attack allows for the alteration of the actual significance to avoid the absurdness or incompatibility. Wordss are given their ordinary significance in this attack.

Mischief Rule If both the actual attack and the aureate regulation fail to deduce a significance that makes sense so the tribunal may take to construe the legislative act by looking at the jurisprudence prior to the statute law, analyzing the job and using statute law redress. The concluding behind the statute law must be understood.

Purposive Approach If the actual attack fails to uncover the significance, so this attack allows for the writers aim when outlining the text to be applied. It allows for the intent of the legislative act to be used.

Contextual Approach If the significance can non be derived from the actual attack so tribunals may take to utilize this attack, where words are taken in context. Noscitur a sociis significance a word is known by the company it keeps.

Extrinsic Material This is used if there is uncertainty to the significance derived from the actual attack, it allows for external beginnings to be called upon to aid reading.

Other Rules Wordss are presumed to hold a consistent significance and an Act should be read as a whole.

Technical significance should be applied to proficient words.

If two significances can be interpreted from an Act so the significance that is in conformity with the Constitution should be applied.

Where two readings are likely so the 1 that leads to a punishment being less likely to be imposed should be used.

Presume statute law is non intended to ; overrule international established jurisprudence, to use to irrelevant legal powers, to use to events prior to statute law, contradict common jurisprudence, bind the Crown or deprive individuals of their belongings without just compensation.

Latimer ( 2010, p. 1-550 ) has suggested the basic regulation for statutory reading is to seek for the intent of the statute law.

Rule

The offense is allegedly being committed against the Gambling Act, a regulation that states:

‘any individual under the age of 18 old ages and who is found in the locality of a betting store shall be prosecuted and apt to a maximal mulct of $ 100. ‘

Analysis

If the tribunal was to use the actual attack to this, so the significance is any individual under the age of 18 and who is found in the locality of a betting store shall be prosecuted and apt therefore this would literally include any individual under 18 in the betting shops locality. It would include under-age individuals merely walking past the betting store, or who may hold been instructed to wait outside the store by a parent who has entered the wagering store to put a stake. The word locality ( nearby, environing, bordering, close propinquity ) would so besides apply to a kid playing in the park merely down the street. The usage of the actual attack to statutory reading in this case becomes absurd and inconsistent with the Gambling Act ‘s intent.

I would see the Golden Rule and the Purposive Approach to be the most appropriate in this state of affairs. By using both of the attacks it will let for a common sense reading of the regulation.

In Mr Gambles defense mechanism, advocate has argued that he is non guilty because he was apprehended ‘in ‘ the betting store whereas the Act lone prohibits under-age individuals being in the ‘vicinity ‘ of a betting store.

If we consider the New South Wales Parliament wants to forbid under-age gaming and therefore has intentionally established the Gambling Act to implement this. If the Purposive attack is applied to the statute law so the presumed purpose of the statute law is taken into history when construing the words. If we consider that the legislator intended to forbid under-age chancing so the statute law when drafted appears to hold been overlooked by the writer and parliament unwittingly. The purpose of the Act is to use to under-age individuals ‘in ‘ the locality of or ‘on ‘ the premises of a betting store and who is take parting in chancing.

Mention should be made to the Unlawful Gambling Act ( 1998 ) No. 113 s.17 which clearly states that a minor must non take part in any signifier of chancing. This farther enforces that chancing by a child is prohibited.

Decision

Mr Gamble is merely 15 old ages of age and entered the betting store of his ain agreement and placed a stake, he was apprehended inside the betting store shortly after puting the stake by a police officer. Mr Gamble can be advised it is most likely he will be found guilty of the offense of under-age gaming and hence be prosecuted and apt to a maximal mulct of $ 100.

x

Hi!
I'm Amanda

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out