A businessman has taken the Attorney General to the Supreme Court for infringing on his constitutional rights by banning gaming and gaming machines in Bermuda last year.

Neil Inchcup Jr. who owned Plush, a members-only club on Parliament Street with gaming machines, as well as a number of other machines in bars across the Island, filed the writ late last year. Mr. Inchcup, trading as Alexis Entertainment and Plush, is challenging the 2001 Prohibition of Gaming Machines Act, which banned gaming machines from Bermuda July 2004.

Mr. Inchcup?s father, Neil Sr. ran a similar business from his home on Collectors Hill called the ?Seamont Exclusive Club?.

His attorneys, Dr. Lloyd Barnett and Mark Pettingill argued constitutional issues yesterday including the deprivation of property and freedom of association. Dr. Barnett argued that Mr. Inchcup?s freedom of association was being infringed upon as he was no longer allowed to associate with others as the purpose of their activity, gambling, was restricted.

Adding that gambling was a ?conscious decision? and by taking that away, you were taking away his clients? constitutional right to consciousness.

Chief Justice Richard Ground replied that the 2001 Act did not criminalise thoughts of gambling, just the act of gambling.

Dr. Barnett responded that ?thought? was being attacked and it was a critical factor in upholding human rights, especially when one was not allowed to gather with others and express what you are thinking, or believe. ?If someone restricts your actions on moral grounds, they?re interfering with your beliefs and thoughts,? he said.

Dr. Barnett said the Legislature had still not demonstrated the moral issues of gaming and argued that prohibition could not stand up to constitutional scrutiny.

Mr. Justice Ground asked if what Mr. Inchcup was doing was unlawful, why would he import machines when they were unlawful, adding the Criminal Code did not deprive people of property, but questioned this when the use of the property was a crime. Mr. Justice Ground said the constitution did not support the right to acquire property, only losing it.

Dr. Barnett asked if the acquisition of a business was banned, did the ban conform to the constitutional right to property?

Adding that it would be nugatory to pass a law that says no one should buy property.

He also argued that there was no ban on gaming machines when Mr. Inchcup purchased them in 2000 and entered the gaming industry.

Mr. Inchcup purchased additional machines in 2002 from his father.

The Crown, represented by Saul Froomkin QC and Debra-Lynn Goins, argued that the import of gaming machines was prohibited on December 22, 1999 and since 2001, Mr. Inchcup had known all along that the day would come when gaming machines for the use of gambling were going to be outlawed and yet continued to open a club in 2002 and purchase additional machines for gambling.

Mr. Froomkin said gaming machines could still be used for entertainment and the 2001 Act did not deprive Mr. Inchcup of his machines for this purpose.

At the end of yesterday?s proceedings, Justice Ground said he would submit a written judgment at a later date.

Mr. Inchcup, who was in court surrounded by friends and family, said he would comment on the case once the judgment was made.