This week saw the jury hand down its finding, and it was not good news for Kelly, who was found guilty of running unlicensed poker games.
Kelly argued that poker is a game of skill and he therefore did not need a licence under the 1968 Gaming Act, as the law requires it only for games of chance.
But the jury disagreed and took less than two hours to find him guilty of organising games at his Gutshot Club in central London.
The prosecution said he took a cut from the prize pot as well as charging the players for participating.
Kelly, a financial analyst from Greystones, Co Wicklow, Ireland, was found guilty of two counts of contravening of the Act.
The charges related to games of poker, organised on 7 December 2004 and 27 January 2005, at the private members club in Clerkenwell where a levy was charged on the winnings.
The Act states a licence is needed to host games of chance such as blackjack and roulette - but not games of skill, like chess and quiz machines.
The trial centred around the popular Texas Hold 'Em variant of poker, and the jury was asked to decide whether it was a game of skill or chance, or a combination of both.
Graham Trembath QC, told the jury that they alone would decide the verdicts. He said: "Is poker a game of mixed skill and chance? That is for you to decide. The prosecution submits that common sense dictates that it is.
"Why do we say that? We say that because before a game can start someone shuffles the cards."
Zeeshan Dhar, defending Kelly, told the jury that poker required such a level of skill that it did not fall within the remit of the Act.
He said: "If we accept that a game of chance includes all games of combined chance and skill every game you could possibly think of would fall foul of this particular Act."
|
|
|
