Abstract
Many words have been written in the debate about the correct stance on dishonesty in criminal law. The long-standing 'Ghosh' test was much criticised but is the new approach formulated in Ivey an improvement or does it simply create a different problem? This article explores this question from the perspective of the practical workability of the tests in the courtroom by using data from a mock trial to assess the extent to which mock jurors were able to understand and apply four different approaches to dishonesty.