Comment: Gambling law: Recent developments

• Citation: (2023) 36 SACJ 485
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v36/i3a7
• Published date: 20 March 2024
• Pages: 485-497
• Author: Carnelley, M.
• Date: 20 March 2024

Gambling law:

Recent developments

MARITA CARNELLEY

North-West University

Several judgments relating to gambling and the ga mbling industry have

arisen over the past few years that are worthy of academic analysis.

This contribution to that analysis will commence with Burgess v S

(CA&R58/2022) [2023] ZAECMK HC 83; 2023 (2) SACR 558 (ECMk)

(8 August 2023) in which the role that gambling addiction should play

in the sentencing process arose, but was not properly dealt with. This

will be followed with a discussion of several search and seizure cases,

namely Ethypersadh v Minister of Police NO [2023] Z AGPPHC 595

(25 July 2023), Buchler v Minister of SAPS NO (6310/2022) [2023]

ZAFSHC 1 (5 January 2 023) and Strauss v Minister of Police NO

(UM30/2019; UM34/2019) [2019] ZANW HC 23 (2 May 2019). The last

section contains brief comments relati ng to the National Lottery: NDPP

v Maweza Nkogatsi Inc (2020/11723) [2021] ZAGPJHC 826 (20 December

2021), as well as t he progress in the recovery of looted lottery f unds

generated by the National Lottery and intended for charity and other

good causes.

Possible gambling addiction: Burgess v The State

In Burgess v The State, the 64 -year-old Burgess pleaded guilty

to 972 counts of fraud to the value of more than R13 million

perpetrated between March 2005 and September 2014. She was

sentenced to 15 years‘ direct imprisonment but appealed the

sentence, arguing that the sentence was unduly excessive and

disturbingly inappropriate. In addition, she argued that the court

a quo incorrectly relied on hearsay evidence during the sentencing

phase (at para [1]). It subsequently became clear from the record

that the court a quo had also prevented her attorney from making

submissions regarding the application of the statutor y prescribed

minimum sentence of 15 years (at para [43]).

COMMENT

https://doi.org/10.47348/SACJ/v36/i3a7

485

(2023) 36 SACJ 485

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd