§ Mr. CarlisleI beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 7, line 36, at end insert:
'which, by any provision of any of those Acts, is to be final'.If you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would also be convenient to take Amendment No. 74 to Schedule 11, which is consequential to Amendment No. 6.These Amendments correct minor errors in Clause 10(1)(b). The intention was to provide that certain licensing decisions under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1963, the Licensing Act, 1964, and the Gaming Act, 1968, which cannot under the present law be questioned by applying to have a case stated for the opinion of the High Court, could not be challenged by applying to the Crown Court to have a case stated. In other words, the intention was to restate the existing law. However, the subsection could be read as excluding from the jurisdiction of the High Court all decisions under those Acts which would include those in respect of criminal 540 offences. This was not the intention. Amendment No. 6 makes that clear. So, where the matter concerns a criminal offence under any of those Acts, it will still be possible to go to the High Court on a case stated.
§ Amendment No. 74 is consequential to Amendment No. 6.
§ Amendment agreed to.