It relied on the jury bringing to the table an intuited sense of what it is to be dishonest in order to apply both limbs of the test. This clearly was not a ‘definition’ of the term dishonesty – it is far too self-referential to be a definition. If both questions were answered in the affirmative, the defendant could be said to have acted dishonestly. Did the defendant realise that reasonable and honest people would regard what he did as dishonest? Was what the defendant did dishonest according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people? And if so,Ģ.
It said the jury should ask itself two questions viz.,ġ. In 1982, the Court of Appeal in R v Ghosh QB 1053 took it upon itself to explain how a jury should go about determining whether a person had acted dishonestly for the purposes of the Theft Act, 1968.
