Report comment

Take the charge of bringing the profession into disrepute, since this is an arbitrary measure then the standard of proof must also be arbitrary.

One can say that being convicted of a s.1 1978 Protection of Children Act offence will always lower the standing of the profession, calling some one a 'plonker' does not I suggest lead to the inference as the former example.

Given this, it must be the case that the latter can as a matter of logic only be found to the flexible civil standard and as such for the recent finding to be safe it must be that the Tribunal adopted this standard.

As we've seen above there are solicitors with over 30 years PQE who don't understand the difference between the legal burden and evidential burden or as Raynor has pointed out the circumstances when the burden shifts and the jurisprudential complexities arising.

For those not up to Murpy or Cross & Tapper et al I suggest

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nutshells-Evidence-Revision-Study-Nutshell/dp/0414045939