Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.
In the light of the potential consequences, and the nature of the majority of the matters brought before the Tribunal, it has always been as plain to me, as night follows day, that the Criminal Standard of Proof must remain mandatory.
While I would concede that it is likely the number of complaints ultimately brought before the Tribunal will inevitably increase if the bar is lowered, that is not the issue. The issue should be the just and equitable treatment of both sides to the matter complained of that comes before the Tribunal, and not whether the individual or firm complained against might possibly have done something (the civil standard of proof on the balance of probabilities leaving all sorts of possible interpretations open to the Tribunal), but whether or not they actually did that about which they are complained beyond any reasonable doubt, to quote the slightly more traditional version.
The issues that come before the Tribunal are inevitably very serious ones, and the results can, and I suspect often do, have life changing consequences for the individual(s) concerned. In consequence the application of highest standard of proof must be maintained.
Come on Chancery Lane, get some backbone and stand up for those you claim to represent.
Copyright © 2019 The Law Society
Site powered by Webvision Cloud