Legal Case Summary
R v Ghosh (Deb Baran) [1982] EWCA Crim 2; [1982] QB 1053; [1982] 3 WLR 110
Meaning of dishonesty under the Theft Act 1968.
Facts
The defendant, Ghosh, was a locum consultant at a hospital who falsely claimed to have carried out a surgical operation in order to claim money when in fact that operation had been carried out by someone else under the National Health Service. He was charged with attempting to procure the execution of a cheque by deception contrary to s.20(2) of the Theft Act 1968 and obtaining money by deception under s.15(1). His defence was that there had been no deception as he was entitled to the money. He appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction.
Issues
The meaning of ‘dishonesty’ under the 1968 Act. The defendant argued that the trial judge had been wrong to direct the jury that they should apply contemporary standards of honesty in deciding whether the defendant was dishonest. He argued that deception had to be intentional or reckless under s.15 of the 1968 Act.
Decision / Outcome
‘Dishonesty’ was a state of mind not a course of conduct. The test under the 1968 Act was both subjective and objective. First, the jury must decide whether the defendant’s conduct was dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people (the objective test). If it was not, that would be the end of the matter. If it was dishonest by those standards, the jury then had to go on to decide whether the defendant himself realized that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards (the subjective test). If it was, then the defendant was ‘dishonest’ under the 1968 Act.
Analysis
The case of R v Ghosh is a seminal decision by the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, which established the two-limb test for determining dishonesty under the Theft Act 1968. The judgment, delivered by Lord Lane CJ, laid down a comprehensive approach to assessing dishonesty, incorporating both objective and subjective elements.
The objective limb of the test requires the jury to consider whether, according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, the defendant’s conduct was dishonest. This limb ensures that the assessment of dishonesty is grounded in societal norms and values, rather than being solely dependent on the defendant’s personal beliefs or moral standards (R v Feely [1973] QB 530, 537).
However, the Court recognized that merely relying on an objective standard could lead to unfairness, as an individual might genuinely hold a different view of honesty due to their unique circumstances or background. Therefore, the subjective limb of the test requires the jury to consider whether the defendant realized that their conduct was dishonest by the objective standards established in the first limb (R v Woodward [1976] QB 752, 758-759).
This two-limb approach strikes a balance between upholding societal standards of honesty and respecting individual circumstances. It ensures that individuals are not convicted for conduct that they genuinely believed to be honest, while also preventing the abuse of subjective beliefs as a defense for objectively dishonest behavior.
The Ghosh test has been widely applied in cases involving dishonesty under the Theft Act 1968 and other legislation, cementing its significance as a guiding principle in the realm of criminal law (R v Dodd [2018] EWCA Crim 2178; R v Sinclair [2019] EWCA Crim 1012).
Summary for Journalists
In a landmark case, the Court of Appeal established a two-part test to determine whether someone acted dishonestly under English law. The case involved a hospital consultant, Ghosh, who falsely claimed payment for a surgical operation he did not perform.
The Court ruled that dishonesty should be assessed using both objective and subjective standards. First, the jury must decide if the person’s actions were dishonest according to the standards of reasonable and honest people (the objective test). If the actions were not dishonest by those standards, then the person is not guilty.
However, if the actions were objectively dishonest, the jury must then consider whether the person realized that their conduct was dishonest by those same standards (the subjective test). If the person genuinely believed their actions were honest, even though they were objectively dishonest, then they would not be considered dishonest under the law.
This two-part test aims to balance societal expectations of honesty with individual circumstances and beliefs. It ensures that people are not convicted for actions they genuinely believed to be honest, while also preventing objectively dishonest behavior from being excused based on personal beliefs alone.
Cases Referenced:
- R v Dodd [2018] EWCA Crim 2178
- R v Feely [1973] QB 530
- R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2; [1982] QB 1053; [1982] 3 WLR 110
- R v Sinclair [2019] EWCA Crim 1012
- R v Woodward [1976] QB 752
Updated 20 March 2026
Update note: This article accurately summarises the decision in R v Ghosh [1982] and the two-limb test it established. However, readers should be aware of a critical subsequent development: the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 substantially departed from the Ghosh test. Although Ivey was a civil case and the Supreme Court’s remarks on the criminal standard were technically obiter, they have been treated as authoritative by the Court of Appeal in criminal cases. The Court of Appeal in R v Barton and Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575 confirmed that the Ivey test now represents the law on dishonesty in criminal proceedings, replacing the Ghosh test. Under Ivey, the second (subjective) limb of Ghosh — requiring the jury to consider whether the defendant realised their conduct was dishonest by ordinary standards — is abolished. The jury now asks only: (1) what was the defendant’s actual state of knowledge or belief as to the facts; and (2) was their conduct dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary decent people? The Ghosh test is therefore no longer good law for current purposes. Students should study this article as an account of the original Ghosh decision and its historical significance, but must understand that Ivey and Barton and Booth now govern the law of dishonesty in England and Wales. The article’s reference to R v Sinclair [2019] EWCA Crim 1012 as an application of the Ghosh test should be treated with caution in light of Barton and Booth.
