Melbourne’s Crown casino blocks thousands of patrons using common law bans, avoids watchdog scrutiny

Introduction to the Issue of Withdrawal of Licences (WOLs)
The issue of withdrawal of licences (WOLs) by Crown Resorts has sparked significant concern due to a notable surge in their issuance. Between 2020 and 2022, Crown Resorts experienced a 300% increase in WOLs, as revealed by an internal audit. This rise has raised questions about the transparency and fairness of the process, particularly as WOLs can have profound implications for individuals affected, often limiting their access to Crown’s gaming facilities.

Details from O’Bryan’s Report and Crown’s Refusal to Provide Data
O’Bryan’s 2023 interim report highlighted inconsistencies in Crown’s policies regarding exclusion orders and WOLs. The report noted a lack of clear criteria guiding the decision to issue a WOL rather than an exclusion order, leading to potential confusion and inconsistent application. When The Age requested specific data on the number of WOLs issued over the past five years, Crown declined to provide the information. Additionally, the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC) refused a Freedom of Information request, citing "secrecy provisions" specific to Crown Melbourne.

Case Studies Illustrating Inconsistency
High-profile cases have brought attention to the seemingly inconsistent application of WOLs. Matt Gudinski, a prominent figure in the music industry and a significant gambler at Crown, was issued a WOL for three months after an unidentified white powder was found in a luxury suite booked under his name. Despite the brief ban, Gudinski was promptly welcomed back to the exclusive Mahogany Room upon completion of his ban. In contrast, other individuals, including former AFL star Wayne Carey, faced longer bans for similar incidents, with Carey receiving a two-year ban after a suspicious substance was found at a gaming table in Perth.

Concerns About Bias Towards High Rollers
The discrepancy in how WOLs are applied has led to concerns about bias, particularly favoritism towards high rollers. Insiders suggest that individuals with significant gaming histories may receive more lenient treatment, such as shorter bans, compared to others who commit similar infractions. This perception of unequal treatment undermines the fairness of Crown’s disciplinary processes and raises questions about the criteria used to determine the severity of bans.

Regulatory Oversight and Lack of Transparency
The regulatory oversight of WOLs has come under scrutiny, with the VGCCC stating that it does not have authority over WOLs issued by Crown. While Crown claims that all decisions are made in accordance with their Security Banning Order policy and are reported to the VGCCC, the lack of direct oversight by the regulator has led to concerns about transparency. This gap in oversight contributes to the perception that Crown operates with a degree of autonomy that may not always align with public or regulatory interests.

Implications for Crown and the Need for Reforms
The increasing use of WOLs and the lack of clear criteria for their issuance have significant implications for Crown Resorts. The absence of transparency in the decision-making process and the apparent inconsistencies in the application of bans raise questions about fairness and accountability. To address these concerns, Crown may need to implement reforms that standardize the criteria for issuing WOLs and ensure that all individuals, regardless of their gaming history, are treated equitably. Enhanced regulatory oversight and greater transparency in the decision-making process could help restore confidence in Crown’s disciplinary practices and ensure that the rights of all patrons are respected.