Simon Parsons reflects on the dishonesty test as the first anniversary of Ivey approaches
- The Ivey test of dishonesty.
- Directing the juries & flawed assumptions.
Until recently there was not a general test of dishonesty that applied, when dishonesty was in question, in both in the civil law and the criminal law. In the civil law the test was objective (after the defendant’s mental state had been ascertained) as set out by Lord Hoffmann in Barlow Clowes v Eurotrust [2005] UKPC 37, [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 478 at pp 1479-1480 as follows: ‘Although a dishonest state of mind is a subjective mental state, the standard by which the law determines whether it is dishonest is objective. If by ordinary standards a defendant’s mental state would be characterised as dishonest, it is irrelevant that the defendant judges by different standards.’
In the criminal law the test of dishonesty was different and was set out in R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 CA, [1982] 2 All ER 689. The judgment was given by Lord Lane CJ at 1064, who said that the jury should determine whether
