Ivey v Genting Casinos (2017) | Dishonesty

Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 fundamentally changed the common law's approach to dishonesty. Previously, the test applicable in criminal law cases was governed by the approach in R v Ghosh [1982] 3 WLR 110, which absolved people of liability when they subjectively believed that their actions were done honestly. Lord Hughes in the Supreme Court held that this was no longer good law, and instead, we should be asking whether the defendant's actions were objectively dishonest, based on the standards of ordinary people. Although there were doubts later on as to Ivey's precedential value, this was resolved by the Court of Appeal in R v Barton & Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575. 00:00 Facts 1:09 R v Ghosh [1982] 2:39 Held 3:28 Lord Hughes 7:05 R v Barton & Booth [2020] Disclaimer: Nothing in this video or description constitutes legal advice. This video is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your lawyer to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form a lawyer-client relationship. All non-licensed clips are used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. What is dishonesty in English law? What is dishonest assistance in a breach of trust? What is the Ghosh test for dishonesty? What is the problem with the Ghosh test for dishonesty? What are the criticisms for the Ghosh test? What is the two part test for dishonesty in theft? What is the Ivey test for dishonesty? What is the problem with the Ivey test for dishonesty? Why was the Ghosh test changed? #law #englishlaw #criminallaw #trustlaw #gdl #pgdl #llb #bptc #commonlaw #civillaw Law, Dishonesty, Criminal Law, Equity and trusts, Trusts law, Land law, Property law, Dishonest assistance, Breach of trust, Theft, Knowing receipt