Wrongful Life—Nipped in the Bud

it characterises a course of conduct; and then pronounced a test of dishonesty, part of which is whether " according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest." Judicial fisticuffs between different Courts of Appeal means that, sooner or later, the question of dishonesty is bound to make its maiden appearance in the House of Lords. Fortunately, this has power to wipe the slate clean and write the definition of dishonesty completely anew. Before it does so, however, there are some basic questions which it should consider. Do we really need an amorphous concept of dishonesty as a universal escape-route in hard cases? If we do, should it really be for the jury rather than the judge to decide whether on given facts the defendant is entitled to escape through it? And if it is for the jury, what measure of control, if any, should the judge have over them? With particular emphasis on the indefinite article, let us pray " to have a right judgment in all things."