The case of Ivey involved the defendant using a card technique called 'edge-sorting' whilst gambling giving himself an advantage in order to win, despite being subject to a gaming contract, which implied a term that he would not cheat.Īfter considering the case in Ivey, the Supreme Court redefined the definition of dishonesty and stated that the second part of the Ghosh test was 'no longer good law'. The defendant must have realised that ordinary honest people would regard his behaviour as dishonest. The conduct complained of was dishonest by the lay objective standard of ordinary reasonable and honest people and if that is established, that
The previous test from the Ghosh case was that where the prosecution was required to demonstrate that the defendant acted dishonestly, they had to convince the relevant jury (or Magistrates) that: The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos has resulted in a landmark change to the law of dishonesty, overturning a 35 year old test from the case of R v Ghosh.