​KembaraXtra - Case Law - Hyam (1997) CA
Dishonesty and the Ghosh Test
Case Summary: A director (D) of a property-owning company was accused of dishonestly inflating prices for work carried out on properties managed by another company he owned, using a decorating company run by a co-accused. He allegedly cashed cheques through acquaintances to conceal the inflated prices.

Key Issue: Adequacy of the jury direction on the issue of dishonesty.

Background Facts:

D was director of a company owning freeholds.
D owned another company acting as managing agents.
Co-accused ran a decorating company.
Work done on properties, D claimed done by multiple firms.
Prosecution argued work done by D's companies at inflated prices.
Allegation of cashing cheques through acquaintances.
D denied acting dishonestly.
Jury Direction:

Dishonesty judged by standards of ordinary right-minded people.
Dishonesty judged according to prevailing standards.
If D realised ordinary people would view his actions as dishonest, then the jury must find him dishonest.
D's Argument:

The jury direction on dishonesty was inadequate.
Held:

Desirable for judges to use Lord Lane's exact words in Ghosh.
Although exact Ghosh words not used, the essential ingredients were present.
Objective Element: Judging dishonesty by the standards of ordinary people.
Subjective Element: Whether D realised reasonable and honest people would consider his actions dishonest.
Appeal dismissed.
Significance:

Reiterates the importance of the Ghosh test in defining dishonesty in criminal law.
Emphasizes both the objective and subjective elements of the Ghosh test.
While using the exact wording of Ghosh is preferable, the essence of the test must be conveyed to the jury.