Report comment

@Anonymous; Commented on: 13 June 2018 08:21 GMT:

"... prospects of success look weak, even from the outside. ... The appeal isn't going to throw up new ground as such, so why not set out clearly their thinking and strategy on what they are trying to achieve. ..."

I think that the SRA are stuck in a Cardinal Morton's Fork here. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

But in view of your comments, presumably all the SRA are after is a reference back to the SDT with the correct guidance on how the burden should be applied?

The facts are been considered so that we don't need another entrenched hearing on the facts. Such will have been heard and an agreed transcript received by the higher court, or any dissension between parties can form the basis of the Respondent's arguments.

The SDT only need to be properly appraised of, and exercise their collective judgment on the burden of proof as laid down at a new hearing on that point alone.

Scruff.