The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE Crown, in seeking to have an injunction lifted off the government and law enforcement, which prevents them taking action against web shop gaming operators, argued that operators had themselves admitted they were engaging in gaming.

Lauren Klein, who represents the Crown with Darren Henfield, Darcell Williamson and Melissa Wright-Knowles, told Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett yesterday that such activities went outside of what they were licensed to do as web shop cafe operators.

However, lawyers Wayne Munroe and Alfred Sears, who represented seven web shop gaming operators, noted that the Crown did not dispute that there was a meeting between the operators and the Ministry of Finance in April 2010 when full disclosure of their operations were made to the government and their licenses were renewed.

Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett, after hearing legal arguments for some five hours yesterday, deferred his ruling on the matter. He said the ruling would be handed down “shortly.”

Mr Munroe and Italia Cartwright represents Island Luck, Island Game, FML Group of Companies, Asue Draw, Whatfall and Chances while Paradise Games was represented by Mr Sears and Jeffery Lloyd.

Background of case post-gambling referendum

THE current legal battle before the chief justice started just days after the January 28 referendum, which sought either to legalise and tax web shop gambling or establish a national lottery. Both were rejected by the electorate.

The following day, on January 29, Prime Minister Perry Christie ordered that all web shops cease their gaming operations.

He had said in the lead up to referendum day that his administration would follow the law after voters had their say.

However, the numbers bosses took legal action on January 30 in the Supreme Court.

In response to their application, Senior Justice Jon Isaacs granted an injunction that prevented the government and the police from taking any action against the patrons and operators of web shops pending the outcome of a conservatory order that was filed by attorneys representing the webshops.

At the beginning of the month, Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson confirmed the government’s plans to file an application on March 13 to lift the injunction.

However, the application on that date was delayed because Mr Sears claimed the Crown had presented his chambers with a 93-page document, inclusive of exhibits, on Friday, March 8, minutes before 5pm.

Mr Sears said that as a result, he hadn’t been able to take instructions from his client and prepare and submit the requisite documents in response to the affidavit prior to the proceedings.

Mr Klein argued that the affidavit was merely a document with reference to particulars of the conservatory order made six weeks ago.

He said that the respondents should have been prepared to proceed and the Crown’s hand should not be tied by the order.

The matter was stood down to yesterday’s date, April 2.

Arguments

In those proceedings, both sides of counsel highlighted the significant parts of their affidavits.

Mr Munroe noted that the document outlined licensing as web shop and internet cafes and when the various entities commenced operations.

He further noted that in paragraph 13, there are assertions that the government during the time they have been in operation, made no attempt to close down the web shop operators, adding that the operators, save for Whatfall, all had a meeting with the government in April 2010 and had their licenses renewed.

The chief justice asked Mr Munroe if it were correct that the affidavit did not explain the activities or what the actual business was. The attorney agreed and continued to say that the licenses for their operations were renewed.

He then referred to the Prime Minister’s statement that notes the intention to close down all web shops.

Mr Sears made similar arguments to Mr Munroe when his turn came to make his case, which prompted Chief Justice Sir Michael to ask if the lawyers were “studiously” avoiding saying whether or not their clients were involved in web gaming operations.

“I’m curious to whether or not that’s disputed,” the chief judge said.

Mr Sears responded that web shop gaming was never legislatively defined with the Lotteries and Gaming Act of the Bahamas.

Mr Klein made his contributions to the legal argument and said that the first few paragraphs of the Crown’s affidavit dealt with the plaintiff’s allegations of them complying with the stipulations made upon granting of their licenses.

Referring to paragraph 14, Mr Klein noted that there was evidence of the operators involved in gaming based on “certain admissions” by themselves that they were engaged in certain activities outside of what they are licensed for.

Mr Klein read to the court a description of Paradise Games pulled from their website which he claims openly admits to gaming and numbers.

Mr Klein noted although the plaintiffs are seeking “certain relief” they have yet to disclose what their actual business entails.

He said criminal prosecution had been commenced against one of the plaintiffs in which some $800,000 was seized by the Crown. Though he noted that case was before the Court of Appeal.

The chief justice asked the Crown’s attorney where in the law books did it say that the premises could not be used for gaming, noting that the definition of lottery under Bahamian law does not include gaming.

“It’s why I was wondering,” Chief Justice Sir Michael said.

Klein responded that numbers, could be referenced or linked to gaming.

In response to Mr Klein, Mr Munroe said that notwithstanding the Crown’s submission, they have not denied that there was a meeting between his clients and the government where there was disclosure and nothing happened to the operations for nearly three years.

He further noted that the former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham permitted the drafting of regulations for the industry which had been exhibited prior to the referendum.

Mr Munroe noted that this was significant because the then government at the time knew what they were licensing.

Conclusion

Following the lunch break, the hearing resumed with both sides presenting authority references to matters from other jurisdictions to support their arguments.

In the end, Chief Justice Sir Michael said he would take into consideration everything that was argued by both sides before giving a decision on what is to become of the injunction pending the substantive hearing that has yet to be scheduled. Though he did not specify a date as to when the ruling would be ready, he did say it would be ready “shortly.”