“Court of Appeal establishes landmark two-stage test for dishonesty in criminal law”
The Court of Appeal held that dishonesty requires a two-stage test: first, whether the defendant's conduct was dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people (objective test), and second, whether the defendant realised that reasonable and honest people would consider the conduct dishonest (subjective test).
Dr Ghosh, a locum consultant, claimed fees for operations he had not performed and for patients he had not treated. He was charged with obtaining property by deception contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968.
What is the correct test for determining dishonesty in criminal law, particularly whether a purely objective test should apply or whether the defendant's own standards of honesty are relevant?
The court rejected a purely objective test as potentially unfair to defendants with different moral standards. However, it also rejected a purely subjective test as it would allow defendants to escape liability by claiming their own warped moral standards. The two-stage test balances these concerns by requiring both objective dishonesty and subjective awareness of that dishonesty.
This case established the definitive test for dishonesty in English criminal law, which was applied across numerous property offences and fraud cases. The Ghosh test remained the leading authority for over 35 years until the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 disapproved its subjective second limb in favour of a wholly objective test, a position confirmed as binding for criminal courts by R v Barton [2020] EWCA Crim 575.
The ratio is the two-stage test for dishonesty: conduct must be dishonest by ordinary standards AND the defendant must realise reasonable people would consider it dishonest.
The Court of Appeal established what became the leading test for dishonesty in criminal law and upheld the defendant's conviction for obtaining money by deception.
It provided the standard test for dishonesty across theft, fraud and related property offences for over 35 years, until the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 replaced its subjective second limb with a wholly objective test, confirmed for criminal courts in R v Barton [2020] EWCA Crim 575.
The court noted that juries should be directed on dishonesty only in cases where the application of contemporary standards of honesty is not obvious, and that in most cases dishonesty will be apparent without detailed direction.
OSCOLA Citation
R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053 (CA)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
[2026] EWCA Crim 486
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.