As a result, the ' Ghosh test', which the jury was required to consider before reaching a verdict on dishonesty: Hence the test for dishonesty was subjective and objective. then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest. a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest .

The Court began by stating (its most senior member, the Chief Justice) 'The law, on this branch of the Theft Act 1968 is in a complicated state and we embark upon an examination of the authorities with great diffidence.' This court reformulated the test for dishonesty. The Court of Appeal found that the conviction was proper so dismissed the doctor's appeal as the original direction did not lead to an unsafe or unsound conviction. His defence team argued that the judge should have instructed the jury that dishonesty was about the accused’s state of mind (a subjective test) rather than the jury’s point of view (an objective test). He appealed on the basis that the trial judge had told the jury to use their common sense to determine whether the accused's conduct had been dishonest or not. During his work as a locum surgeon he was paid one set of extra wages and attempted three times to obtain such wages by claiming variously: for work that others had carried out and for work reimburseable to him via the National Health Service.

He was convicted of four offences under the Theft Act 1968 sections 20(2) and 15(1).

The test has been revised to an objective test, with rare exceptions, by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos UKSC 67.ĭr Ghosh was a surgeon. R v Ghosh EWCA Crim 2 is an English criminal law case setting out a test for dishonest conduct which was relevant as to many offences worded as doing an act dishonestly, such as deception, as theft, as mainstream types of fraud, and as benefits fraud.

Ivey v genting casinos