Ivey v Genting Casinos - An analysis by 3PB Criminal Barrister Thomas Evans
5th December 2017
Criminal Barrister Thomas Evans analyses Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC67 and the test for dishonesty applied in criminal courts.
To read Thomas' analysis, please click here.
Related News
-
3PB criminal barrister Kate Davies represented a man charged with a serious sexual offence. After a six-day trial, the defendant was acquitted by the jury at Bournemouth Crown Court. Kate works across the Western Circuit and is based in 3PB’s Winchester office and takes instructions across the full range of criminal cases and court martials. Kate is also a Level 1 Prosecutor on the CPS Advocate Panel General Crime List. Kate was instructed by Patricia...
Continue reading -
3PB criminal and regulatory barrister Graham Gilbert (pictured here) appeared for Mr Grant St James, the owner of the popular Golden Retriever Experience, throughout the proceedings before the West Somerset Magistrates’ Court. He was instructed by Paul Loughlin, a partner with law firm Stephensons. Mr Grant St James pleaded guilty to a single offence of failing to ensure the welfare of animals under his care, in this instance near 40 golden retrievers. Despite the court...
Continue reading -
3PB Barristers' (3 Paper Buildings) crime barrister Nate Lara has successfully secured an acquittal for his client in relation to a serious sexual offence. SB was charged with a public sexual assault in a pub, where two eyewitnesses and a complaint witness gave evidence before a jury. Nate was able to undermine each of the witnesses and ensure that a solid defence of denial was put before the jury. Following a three-day trial at Winchester...
Continue reading -
3PB Barristers' (3 Paper Buildings) criminal barrister Nate Lara (pictured here) has successfully secured an acquittal for his client in relation to a bomb hoax in a case heard at Swindon Crown Court. JM was charged with causing a bomb hoax at the Badbury Park Primary School in Swindon. Notably, JM accepted making the call to the school but denied making a bomb threat. In cross-examination, Nate questioned the receiver of the call, an administrator...
Continue reading
