Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd
The test for dishonesty is objective: the jury decides the defendant's actual state of knowledge or belief, and then whether his conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people.
Facts
Phil Ivey, a professional gambler, won about £7.7 million playing a card game, Punto Banco, at Crockfords casino in London, owned by Genting. He used a technique known as edge sorting, which involved persuading the croupier to turn certain cards in a way that allowed him to identify them from tiny differences in the pattern on their backs. The casino refused to pay his winnings, claiming that he had cheated. He sued for the money.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that Mr Ivey had cheated, so the casino did not have to pay. Lord Hughes, with whom the other Justices agreed, said, obiter, that the second stage of the Ghosh test did not correctly represent the law. When dishonesty is in question, the fact finder must first ascertain, subjectively, the actual state of the individual's knowledge or belief as to the facts. The question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is then to be determined by applying the objective standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest. Although Ivey was a civil case, the Court of Appeal applied this test in criminal cases in R v Barton and Booth.
Related cases on theft, robbery, burglary and fraud
- Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1985] QB 182
- Corcoran v Anderton (1980) 71 Cr App R 104
- Lawrence v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1972] AC 626
- Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App R 183
- R v Barton and Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575, [2021] QB 685
- R v Collins [1973] QB 100
- R v Ghosh [1982] QB 1053
- R v Gomez [1993] AC 442
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
