R v Barton

Subject Matter

JUDICIAL PRECEDENT — Court of Appeal decision — Conflict of authority — Obiter dictum of Supreme Court disapproving long-standing test for dishonesty in criminal cases established by decision of Court of Appeal — Whether obiter dictum of Supreme Court effectively overruling earlier Court of Appeal decision

[2020] EWCA Crim 575; [2021] QB 685; [2020] 3 WLR 1333; [2020] 4 All ER 742; [2020] 2 Cr App R 7; [2020] WLR (D) 264; The Times, 16 June 2020, CA

CRIME — Conspiracy — Conspiracy to defraud — Defendants exploiting wealthy residents of luxury nursing home to profit from them — Whether defendants acting dishonestly — Whether dishonesty requiring defendant to appreciate conduct dishonest by ordinary standards — Whether offence requiring unlawful or aggravating conduct over and above dishonest agreement containing element of unlawfulness — Whether offence sufficiently precise — Human Rights Act 1998 (c 42), Sch 1, Pt I, art 7

[2020] EWCA Crim 575; [2021] QB 685; [2020] 3 WLR 1333; [2020] 4 All ER 742; [2020] 2 Cr App R 7; [2020] WLR (D) 264; The Times, 16 June 2020, CA

Commentary

Nine St John Street chambers
Case Summary: Booth and Others, 2020. Ivey, not Ghosh, is the test for dishonesty Case comment

Blackstones Criminal Practice 2025
Theft - ‘Dishonesty’ B4.51

Theft - ‘Dishonesty’ - Judicial Definition of Dishonesty B4.54

Theft - ‘Dishonesty’ - New Test of Dishonesty B4.55

The Offence of Fraud - Dishonesty in Fraud Cases B5.11

False Accounting - Mens Rea B6.13

Cheating the Public Revenue B16.3

Social Security Offences - Dishonest Representations for Obtaining Benefit etc. - Elements B16.60

Forgery, Alteration etc. of Licences, Marks, Trade Plates etc. - Elements C4.12

Conspiracy to Defraud - Definition A5.64

Conspiracy to Defraud - Mens Rea A5.69

Rules of Attribution: Principle of Identification A6.2