The Ghosh Test for Honesty

(... with more considerable thanks to Guy Taylor, and his copy of Archbold)

The Law is all about 'honesty'. Honesty of intent i.e. allowing for, and discounting, honest, genuine, mistakes.

There are two components to guilt:

(a) Actis Rea (the action itself), and

(b) Mens Rea (the state of mind/intent).

It is necessary to show BOTH before someone is considered "guilty" of anything.

The test for Mens Rea is the Ghosh Test defined as follows (Reference: Ghosh [1982] 2 All ER 689):

1) Was what was done dishonest according to the standards of reasonable honest people? (Objective)

2) Did the Defendant realise that reasonable and honest people regard what he did as dishonest? (Subjective)

Just about every member of the Law Society is, by that Ghosh Test, guilty as hell (are they not?) ... especially with the gross to the point of obscene costs/charges they demand and including ALL THOSE INVOLVED IN COVER-UPS OF ANY KIND (i.e. Policymen and the so-called "Security Services").

Oh have we just defined the need for Juries (Grand & Petit)? Aren't they (and only they) the necessary "reasonable honest people" who can apply the Ghosh Test?

Is the Ghost Test just a long-winded way of saying "Law = Juries"?

Errr ... does this not come down to what I've always been saying (particularly in my book)? The Ghost Test is "Statute". But it simply re-states the Common Law. Thus it is irrelevant. Void Orders simply re-state the Common Law. ANYTHING IN STATUTE that re-states the Common Law is irrelevant ... because the Common Law is always there. ANYTHING ELSE (in Statute), is therefore null, void, and irrelevant. "Parliament" is therefore, by definition - by and large - IRRELEVANT (except for the 'usefulness' where they may 'catalogue' The Common Law in more detail e.g. The Fraud Act 2006).

Veronica, June 2012