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 Barristers’ specialist criminal defence barrister Nick Robinson has successfully defended his client ME, who was charged with rape. Nick’s client was arrested on suspicion of rape following an incident in Bournemouth in 2025. The complainant alleged ME had raped her after she changed her mind and refused to perform a sex act on him after having agreed to do so for money. The defence case was that the sexual activity was consensual, agreed in...
Continue reading -
3PB crime barrister Rebecca McKnight’s client was accused of causing really serious injuries with intent to cause really serious harm, in other words a section 18 offence under the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. It was accepted that serious injuries had been caused by her client but the issue for trial was intent. After careful questioning of both the complainant and the defendant Rebecca’s client was acquitted. This vulnerable client would have faced a...
Continue reading -
3PB Barristers criminal specialist, Thomas Acworth, was led by Charles Row KC in the defence of JA, a woman who was accused of murdering her former long-term partner. The prosecution case was that, at the instigation of her daughter, JA planned to kill the deceased by luring him to a house where he was stabbed by her daughter’s boyfriend. Following an 11-week trial before Martin Spencer J at Salisbury Crown Court, the jury unanimously acquitted...
Continue reading -
3PB criminal barrister Nate Lara (pictured here) has successfully represented a client who was charged with multiple offences including rape and serious violence. After substantive advice, Nate's client entered pleas of guilty to serious allegations of violence, which mitigated his exposure to questions on his credibility and meant the cross-examination of the complainant would be both succinct and effective. Through cross-examination, Nate effectively challenged the reliability of the complainant’s evidence, exposing inconsistencies with the earlier...
Continue reading
