What is dishonesty?

There has, for a long time, been a debate as to whether, in order to establish dishonesty, one has to show that the perpetrator knew he was being dishonest.
To illustrate; a tourist using public transport from a country in which public transport was free gets on a bus. If that person got off the bus without paying, would he be dishonest?
The Supreme Court recently considered this issue in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC67. That was a case which involved a professional gambler who was playing baccarat and on leaving the casino, was refused his £7.7 million winnings. The gambler said that although he accepted he was edge sorting, a technique of identifying minute differences in the design on the back of cards, he did not think that was dishonest. The skill he applied led him to the conclusion that it was him being skilful, rather than cheating. The Court considered that he genuinely believed this, hence him taking the claim.
The Supreme Court considered both civil and criminal cases on the matter. The Court confirmed that the same test applies to both Courts. In a thoughtful and ground-breaking decision, the judges clarified the law and set out a two-stage test.
They found that when assessing an individual’s state of mind at the time, one must ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. What his actual state of mind was is a matter of fact. It does not have to be reasonable and in that sense, the test is subjective. The question is whether his belief was genuinely held.
Once there was a finding as to his actual state of mind as to the knowledge or belief as to the facts, the question of whether the person’s conduct was dishonest is to be determined by applying the (objective) standards of the ordinary decent person.
Although there can be exceptions, such as a mistake as to the law as in the earlier example, the previous test set out in the case of R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim2 was over-ruled. In that case, the person had to be proven to have known what he was doing was dishonest. Hence a genuinely held belief can be dishonest – he was cheating.
Please note
The information on the Anthony Gold website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. It is provided without any representations or warranties, expressed or implied.

Related Guides
- September 18, 2017
How do I complain about a Deputy or Attorney?
- August 23, 2017
Law Commission’s proposals to change rules as to Capacity to make a Will
- November 27, 2017
Taxation of Trusts – Registration with HMRC – New online system
Our Latest Commercial & Civil Dispute Resolution Insights
- January 6, 2025
Understanding Capacity to Litigate and the Civil Justice Council’s Proposals
- December 18, 2024
Landmark Decision: Hirachand v Hirachand and the Recoverability of Success Fees
- November 6, 2024
Anthony Gold Solicitors successful in Beddoe Application
- June 7, 2024
Can a minor child or somebody who lacks mental capacity bring a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975?
- June 3, 2024
What happens to partnership assets following dissolution?
- May 31, 2024
Hirachand v Hirachand: Conditional Fee Agreements in Inheritance Act ClaimsÂ
Latest Articles
View allContact us today
"*" indicates required fields
Contact the commercial
& civil Dispute team today
"*" indicates required fields
Contact the Conveyancing team today
Contact the Conveyancing team today
Contact the Wills, Trusts
& Estates team today
Contact the Court of
Protection team today
Contact the Employment Law team today
Contact the Clinical Negligence team today
Contact the Family & Relationships team today
Contact the Personal Injury Claims team today
Contact the leasehold & Freehold team today
Contact the Corporate & Commercial team today
Contact the housing & disputes team
"*" indicates required fields