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 (3 Paper Buildings) criminal barrister Berenice Mulvanny, leading fellow 3PB crime and regulatory team member Graham Gilbert, represented the prosecution in the notorious case of Jordan Wilkes, which was heard at Bournemouth Crown Court. Wilkes has now received a sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment, with an extended licence period of 5 years. Wilkes was convicted in a five-day trial in March of attempting to murder a nine-year-old girl with a penknife. He had used...
Continue reading -
3PB criminal defence barrister Nick Robinson (pictured here) represented his client who was charged with multiple offences including rape and sexual assault, all of which were said to have happened over 15 years ago. This was a complex trial due to the number of complaints and the historic nature of the allegations. Nick drafted a detailed defence statement, which resulted in the disclosure of critically important evidence. This included sensitive material relating to an earlier...
Continue reading -
As part of her degree, Sophie Rogers (pictured here) - a third-year LLB Law student at the University of Winchester - has just finished a six-month placement with 3PB's Crime and Regulatory Crime team in their Winchester office. This is the first such placement run by 3PB (3 Paper Buildings) and may well be one of the very first such initiatives run by a barristers chambers in the UK. Jodie Mittell KC, who co-heads 3PB's...
Continue reading -
3PB's criminal defence barrister Nick Robinson, leading crime and regulatory barrister Anna Leathem, defended “D” who was charged with multiple offences of rape, sexual assaults and coercive and controlling behaviour. The alleged offences were said to have occured over a two and a half year period. D's case was that the allegations were fabricated to gain leverage in divorce proceedings. D contended that the complainant was the controlling, coercive, and physically abusive party. The police...
Continue reading
