Evaluate the requirement of dishonesty in theft cases as per s of the Theft Act

Title: The Requirement of Dishonesty in Theft Cases under Section 2 of the Theft Act 1968: An Evaluation

Introduction
Theft is a criminal offense that is defined under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of it. Central to the offense of theft is the requirement of dishonesty, which is outlined under Section 2 of the Theft Act. This essay seeks to evaluate the significance and interpretation of the requirement of dishonesty in theft cases, particularly in light of Section 2 of the Theft Act 1968.

The Definition of Dishonesty under Section 2 of the Theft Act
Section 2 of the Theft Act 1968 provides that a person's appropriation of property is dishonest if he or she appropriates the property without the consent of the owner and intends to permanently deprive the owner of it, and if the person appropriating the property knows that his or her appropriation is dishonest by the standards of ordinary, honest people.

The Ghosh Test
The leading case of R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 established a two-stage test to determine dishonesty in criminal cases. The first stage requires establishing whether the defendant's conduct was dishonest according to the standard of ordinary, honest people. The second stage involves determining whether the defendant was aware that his or her conduct was dishonest by those standards. This subjective element ensures that individuals with different cultural or moral values are also taken into account when assessing dishonesty.

Criticism of the Ghosh Test
Critics argue that the Ghosh test places undue emphasis on the subjective element of dishonesty, which may not always align with the objective standard of ordinary, honest people. This could lead to inconsistent application of the law and undermine the principle of certainty in criminal law.

The Impact of Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67
In the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos, the UK Supreme Court moved away from the Ghosh test and emphasized the importance of an objective standard of dishonesty. The Court held that the test for dishonesty should be whether the defendant's conduct was dishonest according to the standards of ordinary, decent people.

Conclusion
The requirement of dishonesty plays a fundamental role in theft cases under the Theft Act 1968. While the Ghosh test had been the prevailing approach for assessing dishonesty, the decision in Ivey v Genting Casinos has shifted the focus towards an objective standard of dishonesty. The requirement of dishonesty remains a crucial element in proving the offense of theft, and its interpretation continues to evolve through judicial decisions.

References
- Theft Act 1968
- R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2
- Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67