12:49, October 26 2017
A poker champion lost a lawsuit on Wednesday (Thursday NZ time) against a London casino that refused to pay him millions in winnings because it said he had cheated, in a ruling that overturns 35 years of legal practice on what is "dishonest".
The ruling means that juries in criminal cases in England will no longer have to consider whether defendants realised that what they did would be seen as dishonest by reasonable, honest people. The question will be whether the conduct was dishonest by those standards, regardless of the defendant's perception.
"This is one of the most significant decisions in criminal law in a generation," said Stephen Parkinson, head of criminal litigation at the law firm Kingsley Napley, which advised the casino in the Supreme Court case.
The legal battle, a civil not criminal one, hinged on whether the actions of professional US poker player Phil Ivey during games of Punto Banco at the Crockfords casino in London over two days in August 2012 amounted to cheating.
Thanks and please upvote my post... click on this 👉 ^ 👈button for upvoting...😊
Have a nice day👷