European Gaming Lawyer magazine Spring 2016 | Page 29

One of Mr. Al Gaebury’s defences
concerned the effect of the Commission’s
Codes of Practice and in particular the
code about self-exclusion. Part of that is
a social responsibility code; compliance
with such a code is a condition on the
gambling operating licence, and breach of
a condition is an offence. The relevant code
provisions were set out in paragraph 2.5
(now 3.5) of the Licence Conditions and
Codes of Practice set by the Commission.
The Judge’s conclusions on the meaning
of those, and on the revocation, was that
there was no prohibition on revocation
of a self-exclusion agreement, provided at
least six months had elapsed since it was
entered into. She said that revocation of
a self-exclusion agreement is a bilateral
process: the customer must request it,
there must be a “reasoned” decision by the
operator whether to agree to it or not, and
any revocation must only be on reasonable
grounds. Raising a self-exclusion on this
basis, said the Judge, reflects the individual’s
autonomy.
It was a major part of Mr. Al Gaebury’s
case that he was a gambling addict and
out of control, but, as with Mrs Al Daher,
he could not produce any cogent medical
evidence to support that, and, on the
evidence, the Judge did not believe him.
One of the Ritz staff with forty years
experience, spoke about the profile of a
problem gambler in her experience:“Well, we’re trained to recognise
symptoms of a problem gambler. There’s
quite a few, but the main ones are that
a customer will come in and he will ask
for help, he will say he has a problem.
His friends and family will say: this
man’s got a problem and you should
be stopping him. He will show remorse
for the amount of money and time he’s
spent in the casino. He will – you will
see that his mood swings a lot, and he
will – sometimes when he’s having a
really bad problem, he will look depressed
and he won’t speak to anybody, he will
look down, he will come in. They get a
bit – their personal hygiene goes out the
window and they become very scruffy
when they’re on a low. They get a bit
anxious when they can’t get money. They
will start to pester the other customers
for more funds, become a nuisance.

Also another indicator is a person who
comes in and thinks gambling is a way
to make money…. One or more (of these
indicators), but generally speaking you
can spot them straight away” (para. 19).
Later the Judge set out the DSM-5 criteria of
the problem gambler, and did not consider
that Mr. Al Gaebury came within any of
them. They are:(a) Needs to gamble with increasing
amounts of money in order to achieve
desired excitement.
(b) Is restless or irritable when attempting to
cut down or stop gambling.
(c) Has made repeated unsuccessful efforts
to control, cut back, or stop gambling.
(d) Is often preoccupied with gambling (e.g.
having persistent thoughts of reliving past
gambling experiences, handicapping or
planning the next venture, thinking of ways
to get money with which to gamble.
(e) Often gambles when feeling
distressed (e.g. helpless, guilty, anxious,
depressed).
(f) After losing money gambling, often
returns another day to get even (chasing
one’s losses).
(g) Lies to conceal the extent of
involvement of gambling.
(h) Has jeopardised or lost a significant
relationship, job, or educational or
career opportunity because of gambling.
(i) Relies on others to provide money
to relieve desperate financial situations
caused by gambling.
The Judge again agreed with the Judge in
Calvert that there was no broad common
law duty و