A poker player who used a Victorian conjuring trick to win £7.7 million from a London casino left court empty-handed in 2017 after a court found he “took positive steps to fix the deck”. But now judges have decided that the ruling in Phil Ivey’s case should be the test for dishonesty. Joshua Rozenberg explains how it works, while a gambler tells us that the courts have got it wrong.

Also this week, how do you ensure social distancing in a crowded detention centre?

And how is lockdown affecting the work of the civil justice system?

Contributors:

Researcher: Diane Richardson