In R v Ghosh, [1982] QB 1053. Lord Lane stated: 'In determining whether the prosecution have proved that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether [...]. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails. If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest. In most cases, where the actions are obviously dishonest by ordinary standards, there will be no doubt about it. It will be obvious that the defendant himself knew that he was acting dishonestly. It is dishonest for a defendant to act in a way which he knows ordinary people to consider to be dishonest, even if he asserts or genuinely believes that he is morally justified in acting as he did.' (Emphasis added.)
Answer
according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest
Tags
#crime #law #theft
Question
In R v Ghosh, [1982] QB 1053. Lord Lane stated: 'In determining whether the prosecution have proved that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether [...]. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails. If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest. In most cases, where the actions are obviously dishonest by ordinary standards, there will be no doubt about it. It will be obvious that the defendant himself knew that he was acting dishonestly. It is dishonest for a defendant to act in a way which he knows ordinary people to consider to be dishonest, even if he asserts or genuinely believes that he is morally justified in acting as he did.' (Emphasis added.)
Answer
?
Tags
#crime #law #theft
Question
In R v Ghosh, [1982] QB 1053. Lord Lane stated: 'In determining whether the prosecution have proved that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether [...]. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails. If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest. In most cases, where the actions are obviously dishonest by ordinary standards, there will be no doubt about it. It will be obvious that the defendant himself knew that he was acting dishonestly. It is dishonest for a defendant to act in a way which he knows ordinary people to consider to be dishonest, even if he asserts or genuinely believes that he is morally justified in acting as he did.' (Emphasis added.)
Answer
according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In R v Ghosh, [1982] QB 1053. Lord Lane stated: 'In determining whether the prosecution have proved that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest . If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails. If it was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the de
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.