This case is taught as history . Facts: Ghosh, a surgeon, claimed for an operation he did not perform. His defence: He thought he was owed the money due to a dispute over fees. Holding: The Court of Appeal created the Ghosh two-part test for dishonesty: (1) Was the act dishonest by the standards of ordinary people? If yes, (2) Did the defendant realise that ordinary people would see it as dishonest? The Overruling: In Ivey v. Genting Casinos (2017) – a civil case – the Supreme Court abolished the second (subjective) limb. The current test is purely objective: Was the act dishonest by the standards of ordinary people? The defendant’s own awareness is irrelevant. Student Takeaway: You must cite Ivey for current law, but examiners love asking you to compare Ghosh and Ivey to highlight the debate over whether a pathological defendant (who truly believes theft is fine) should be convicted.
For a conviction, the prosecution must prove that the defendant’s actions were the factual and legal cause of the result. criminal law case studies for students
Modern criminal law has struggled to define consent, especially in sexual offences and theft. This case is taught as history