This is the leading authority on the modern test for dishonesty in English law. The Supreme Court disapproved R v Ghosh and replaced it with a single objective standard, now applied across both criminal and civil contexts. The case also clarifies what amounts to “cheating” in gambling, holding that cheating is an objective concept that does not require dishonesty. It is the definitive authority for the Ivey test. 

Ivey, a professional gambler, played Punto Banco Baccarat at Crockfords casino. Using a technique known as edge-sorting, he persuaded the croupier to rotate certain cards under the guise of superstition. Because the cards’ backs had tiny asymmetries, rotating high-value cards allowed him to identify them later when they appeared in the shoe. He wagered very large stakes and won approximately £7.7 million. The casino refused to pay, alleging cheating. Ivey admitted the conduct but argued it was legitimate "advantage play" and not cheating or dishonest. The High Court and the Court of Appeal held against him. 

(1) Did Ivey’s conduct amount to “cheating” for the purpose of the implied term in the gaming contract?

(2) Does cheating require proof of dishonesty?

(3) If dishonesty is relevant, what is the correct legal test for dishonesty? 

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Ivey’s conduct was cheating. Cheating does not require proof of dishonesty. Even if dishonesty were required, the Court stated the correct test is objective: the defendant’s actual belief about facts is assessed subjectively, then the question is whether, by the standards of ordinary decent people, the conduct was dishonest. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that their conduct is regarded as dishonest. Ghosh was expressly disapproved. 

1. Cheating is an objective concept in gambling: it involves actions that interfere with the essential premise of the game or give an improper advantage. It does not depend on the player's personal belief about whether the conduct is legitimate.

2. Dishonesty is not a required element of cheating, because cheating carries inherent wrongfulness in the context of regulated games, and many forms if cheating involve no deception.

3. The new test for dishonesty:

   • Determine the defendant’s actual knowledge or belief as to the facts (subjectively).

   • Assess whether the conduct, in light of those facts, is dishonest by the objective standards of ordinary decent people.

   • There is no second limb requiring the defendant to realise that ordinary people would consider it dishonest.
     This replaces the Ghosh test.