An Australian club and the gambling regulator reached a settlement in a court appeal, to which a local problem gambler was not called to give evidence, despite the fact that she had lost more than AU$220,000 there.
The gambling regulatory body has further revealed that it was required to take the club’s settlement offer into consideration due to model litigant rules.
Today, Gordon Ramsay, the Gambling Minister of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and David Snowden, the chief executive officer of ACT Gambling and Racing Commission appeared before budget estimates, only a week after the decision to make an agreement with the Raiders Club in the case of Professor Laurie Brown. As a result of the settlement, the gambling regulatory authority dropped the AU$120,000 fine which was imposed on the club to record the problem gambling behaviour of Professor Brown in its register of gambling incidents. The Raiders Club, on the other hand, agreed to make a donation worth AU$60,000 to a local charity.
As mentioned above, Professor Brown was not called to appeal before the court. Previously, the decision for the settlement had made territory and federal politicians to comment on the decision, describing it as very disappointing.
ACT Gambling and Racing Commission’s CEO Snowden commented on the case, saying that the litigation was complex and carried some risks. He further confirmed that the parties had reached an agreement with public terms. He further shared that the Raiders Club had confessed that their actions were not in line with the code of practice, as they failed to fill out the so-called gambling incident registers as it had been required to. For the time being, clubs are legally required to keep a record of players who show signs of possible gambling addiction.
The Raiders Club Would Donate AU$60,000 to Charity
The so-called model litigant rules set out a certain framework for the government body to behave before, during and after litigation with another government body, an individual or a private company. The guidelines are obligatory for state governments, with the latter being required to deal with such legal claims quickly, assess the prospects of winning and also seek alternative options to settle the dispute. In addition, the guidelines also recognise governments which are to pursue or defend some claims on behalf of the public.
Today, the Board of the Raiders Group was expected to make a decision and announce which charity organisation would get the AU$60,000 agreed under the settlement with the regulator. However, as reported by The Canberra Times, the club failed to respond to requests for comment on the matter.
As explained by Mr. Snowden, in order for the charity to be considered acceptable under the terms of the settlement, it would have to be associated with problem gambling prevention and treatment, or gambling-related harm minimisation. He further noted that one of the key parts of the agreement reached between the Raiders Club and the local gambling regulator was an independent audit to be held at the club’s compliance with gambling code of practice.
Unfortunately, he revealed that the number of incidents recorded in Canberra-located clubs’ registers had risen following the case of Professor Brown. As a result, the local gambling code of practice is set to see some changes due to the case.
- Author
Daniel Williams
