THE unprecedented use of a persona non grata notice by Marina Bay Sands (MBS) to ban a former top casino executive from the entire integrated resort over alleged highroller and staff poaching has raised questions about the legality and fairness of such notices.
Legal experts told The Straits Times that such a move was highly unusual, and while it does not contravene the Casino Control Act, the sweeping ban has sparked debate over whether it is too wide-ranging and whether the integrated resort is entitled to ban people from quasi-public spaces within its premises.
A quasi-public property refers to a space that is privately-owned but open to public access. This could include shopping malls and lobbies of hotels and office buildings.
The Straits Times had reported on Aug 28 that Resorts World Sentosa (RWS) chief casino officer Andrew MacDonald and another RWS executive, Louise Ng, were each issued persona non grata notices prohibiting them “from entering or remaining on any part of Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort premises”.
The ban, which took effect on Jul 31, would mean both executives would not be able to enter areas “including but not limited to the hotel, mall, convention centre and casino, mall”.
MBS has not stated publicly why the duo are no longer welcome, but media reports said the notices were issued over concerns that MacDonald might have been attempting to poach MBS customers and staff during several visits to the property in July this year.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
MacDonald, who was with MBS for nearly 12 years before joining RWS, has denied the allegations.
It is not uncommon for casinos to issue persona non grata (or unwelcome person) notices to unruly persons.
In the US, American socialite Paris Hilton was banned in 2010 from two Wynn resorts – Wynn Las Vegas and Encore – on the Las Vegas Strip, after she was arrested for investigation of felony cocaine possession.
Former Batman star Ben Affleck was also banned from playing blackjack at Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas in 2014 for card counting.
Legal experts said it is well within the rights of private property owners to issue persona non grata notices.
LVM Law Chambers associate director Justin Chan noted that private property owners in general can refuse anyone entry to their premises and are not obliged to give reasons for their decision.
In this latest instance, the Gambling Regulatory Authority has said the ban was a “business decision imposed by the casino operators”.
Lawyer Peter Doraisamy said that besides casinos, hotels and supermarkets here have also issued persona non grata notices on individuals.
That said, Doraisamy pointed out that even though commercial entities “mostly have freedom to ban individuals from their private premises”, owners of quasi-public spaces also need to consider whether it is fair to do so.
He added that the MBS integrated resort has all the elements of a quasi-public place, with a hotel, convention centre, casino, retail shops, theatre, public waterfront, and restaurants.
The basement level features direct access to the Bayfront MRT station and underground pathways to The Shoppes, hotel and Gardens by the Bay, he said.
“Persona non grata notices can be issued by owners of private property, and this is usually a business decision that the Courts would respect,” he said.
He added that if an individual chooses to dispute such a prohibition by suing the issuer, the courts can decide if such a measure was wrongful.
While legal experts agreed that it is legal for MBS to impose a property-wide ban, the scope of the ban has sparked discussion.
Mervyn Cheong, deputy director at the Centre for Pro Bono and Clinical Legal Education at the National University of Singapore Law Faculty, said the scope of the ban against MacDonald – which includes the shopping mall and the convention centre – could be perceived to be unreasonable.
“So in a way, the persona non grata notice prohibits MacDonald from even walking through The Shoppes to get to the Bayfront MRT station, or to take a taxi from the car pick-up area,” he said.
Pointing to exclusion orders here – which can be issued against problem gamblers to prohibit them from entering the casinos – Cheong said while such orders are common, they typically do not prohibit entry to the wider integrated resort premises.
“Ultimately, a property owner has the right to exclude people, whom the owner considers to be undesirable or unwelcomed, from the property. It will be difficult for an individual to identify a specific right that guarantees him access to the premises,” said Cheong.
As to whether the recent persona non grata notice imposed by MBS may also lead to more property owners also imposing such bans, Tan Cheng Han, chief strategy officer of NUS Law Faculty and president of the Asian Law Schools Association, said this would be unlikely.
Tan said mall operators will be constrained by public criticism, pointing out for instance that an establishment could face reputational harm if it banned a food reviewer because of a bad review.
“In practical terms, the prospect of bad publicity and reputational damage means that such notices will be used sparingly,” he said. THE STRAITS TIMES
