An unfortunate feature of legislative drafting is that most legislation is expressed to apply to the world at large … so said Ball JA in a recent gambling case1. TexBet was convicted of ‘providing’ gambling ads via SMS to a gambler in Victoria whose account had been closed on request2. It appealed on the basis that statutes are presumed only to operate locally both at common law and under statute3. Other laws, however, modified the presumption here by extending the reach of the gambling offences ‘beyond the territorial limits’ of NSW4. Ball JA (at [29-32]) ordered acquittal, as the ‘central focus’ and ‘physical element’ of the offence involved ‘providing’ gambling ads to a relevant person in NSW. The focus is on where the ads were received, not from where they were sent. A betting service anywhere would be liable where ads are provided to a relevant person in NSW.
Gordon Brysland – Tax Counsel Network gordon.brysland@ato.gov.au 0417 605 338
See here for the official PDF of Episode 124 of interpretation NOW!
Thanks – Charlie Yu, Jeremy Francis, Patrick Boyd & Matt Snibson.
Footnotes:
1 O’Shea Bookmaking Pty Ltd t/a TexBet v Argeres [2025] NSWSC 1137 [17].
2 s 33HA(1) Betting and Racing Act 1998 (NSW) – TexBet was fined $33,000.
3 DRJ [2020] NSWCA 242 [4], s 12(1)(b) Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) resp.
4 [22-24], Part 1A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), in particular s 10A(1).