Report comment

Doesn't the SDT already have a success rate in the region of 97%? If so, is a lowering of the standard of proof really necessary and proportionate?

Yes, you might convict the odd 'guilty' person who would otherwise get away, but this could potentially be at the expense of convicting multiple 'innocent' people along the way.

People's careers, dignity and livelihoods are at stake here. It feels wrong that those can be sacrificed, and lives potentially ruined, on the basis of a balance of probabilities.

If the Law Society could step up and defend us on this one then I'm sure that would be much appreciated.