Skip to content

Menu

ChannelsPublishersSubscribe
LexBlog, Inc. logo
LexBlog, Inc. logo
ProductsSub-MenuBlogsPortalsTwentySyndicationMicrositesResource Center
Join
Search
Close
Join the Movement. Blog 4 Good

Ghosh laid to rest: Court of Appeal confirms that the objective test for dishonesty applies in criminal law, rather than the problematic Ghosh test

By Neil O’May (UK), Pamela Reddy (UK) & Claudia Culley on May 5, 2020
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn

 On 30 April 2020, the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment confirming that the test for dishonesty in criminal law is that set out by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos, as opposed to the much criticised Ghosh test.

In practical terms, this decision means that it should prove easier to prove offences requiring dishonesty, for example offences under the Fraud Act or conspiracy to defraud offences.

 The judgment in R v David Barton and Rosemary Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575, held that the Supreme Court’s obiter commentary in Ivey should be followed by the Court of Appeal, and that the “the Magistrates or jury in such cases would first establish the facts and then apply an objective standard of dishonesty to those facts, with those facts being judged by reference to the usual burden and standard of proof”. 

Since 1982, the Ghosh test for dishonesty has applied, requiring:

  1. an objective test (whether, according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, what was done was dishonest); and
  2. a subjective test (if it was dishonest by those standards, whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest).

In Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67, a professional gambler argued that his use of a technique called ‘edge sorting’, (which significantly improved his chances of winning), was not ‘cheating’, but merely made him an ‘advantage player’. On the basis of the Ghosh test, the second ‘subjective’ limb was therefore not satisfied.

The Supreme Court noted, obiter, that ‘the second leg of the test propounded in Ghosh does not correctly represent the law and that directions based upon it ought no longer to be given…The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief is a matter of evidence (often in practice determinative) going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief must be reasonable’. Rather, the test for dishonesty should be:

  1. What was the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts?
  2. Was his conduct dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people?

Civil proceedings have, since 1995, advocated this exclusively  objective test (Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan [1995] 2 AC 164, confirmed by Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd [2005] UKPC 37).

The decision in R v Barton confirmed that “where the Supreme Court itself directs that an otherwise binding decision of the Court of Appeal should no longer be followed and proposes an alternative test that it says must be adopted, the Court of Appeal is bound to follow what amounts to a direction from the Supreme Court even though it is strictly obiter” avoiding the need for a further appeal in this case to the Supreme Court to ensure that the decision in Ivey was binding

 

Photo of Neil O’May (UK) Neil O’May (UK)
Read more about Neil O’May (UK)Email
Photo of Pamela Reddy (UK) Pamela Reddy (UK)
Read more about Pamela Reddy (UK)Email
Photo of Claudia Culley Claudia Culley
Read more about Claudia CulleyEmail
  • Posted in:
    Financial, International
  • Blog:
    Financial services: Regulation tomorrow
  • Organization:
    Norton Rose Fulbright
  • Article: View Original Source

Stay Connected

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers

Company

  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service

Products

  • Products
  • Blogs
  • Portals
  • Twenty
  • Syndication
  • Microsites

Support

  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • Pennsylvania Family Law
  • Real Estate Insights
  • Proskauer on Advertising Law
  • Minding Your Business
  • In Search of Great Customer Experiences
Copyright © 2021, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered By LexBlog