1277;J. ONIBANIYI & ANOR VS THE STATE (1972) SUIT NO: SC.235/1971 8-9 SC PAGE 97 PER UDO UDOMA JSC. In Australian Jurisprudence, the words, “honesty” and “dishonesty” as discussed in the case of R VS SALVO (1980) VR PAGE 40 AT PAGE 407, are used in ordinary parlance to connote respectively, “non-compliance with or disregard of the dictates of the Moral Virtue of Justice, which acknowledges and gives effect to the rights of others to, or in respect of material things, or of the relationship of one Person to another, e.g. Master and Pupil, Vendor and Purchaser, Employer and Employee, etc. The Terms may in certain contexts connote respect for or the disregard of the Moral Virtue of Truth. The word “dishonestly” implies reference to a Standard of Morality underlying the Law: they derive not from the Law but from the Standard of Ethics accepted by the Community. The Law sets Standards of Legality and Illegality but cannot set and never has purported to set Standards of Morality.” The Court of Appeal in England in the case of R VS GHOSH (1982) 2 ALL ER PAGE 689 AT PAGE 696 at RATIO 154, held that Dishonesty is an element of Mens Rea, clearly referring to a State of Mind, and that overall, the test that must be applied is hybrid, but with a Subjective Bias which "looks into the mind" of the Person concerned and establishes what he was thinking. The Test was Two-Stage, namely: a) "Where the Person's actions honest according to the Standards of Reasonable and Honest People?" If a Jury decides that they were, then the Defendant's claim to be honest will be credible. But, if the Courtdecides that the Actions were Dishonest, the further question is: b) "Did the Person concerned believe that what he did was Dishonest at the time?" The QueenslandCourt of Appeal in Australia in the Case of R VS DILLON; EX PARTE ATTORNEY GENERAL (QLD) (2015) QCA PAGE 155 OR (2016) 1 Qd R 56 (14/194), departed from the Dictum in R VS GHOSH (CITED SUPRA), when it held inter alia that, “…Queensland Courts must now construe the Term “Dishonestly” as requiring the Prosecution to prove only that what the Accused Person did was dishonest by the Standards of Ordinary Honest People, and to secure a Conviction, the Prosecution need not prove that the Accused Person must have realized that what he or she was doing, was Dishonest by the Standards of Ordinary Honest People.” The Decision in R VS GHOSH (CITED SUPRA) was also criticized in 2017, and overruled by the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court in the case of IVEY VS GENTING CASINOS (UK) LTD TRADING AS, CROCKFORDS [2017] UKSC 67DELIVERED ON THE 25TH OCTOBER 2017, where the Supreme Court concluded that the Correct Approach is to: a) Determine what the Defendant actually knew of or believed as to the Facts. Whether the Defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, are not a Separate Issue – but goes to whether the beliefs were genuinely held; b) Decide whether the Defendant’s Conduct is dishonest by the Standards of Ordinary, Reasonable and Honest People; c) There is no further Requirement that the Defendant Knew or Appreciated that he or she acted Dishonestly. 109