Report comment

If anyone is interested, I've just sent this to the SDT:

Dear Sir

I refer to the Consultation Paper which the SDT has recently issued.

Page 4 of that document includes a table which states that no applications for a rehearing were made during 2016. The SDT's records will show that it heard at least one application for a rehearing during 2016: the application in case no. 11428-2015 (Blacker), which was heard on 6 September 2016. Why is that application not recorded in the table?

So that I (and other lawyers/members of the public) may consider whether/how to respond the consultation, please deal with the following points:

1. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the SRA has a "success rate" of 90% or more: in other words, it wins more than 90% of prosecutions (which are currently subject to the criminal standard of proof). Please provide details of the conviction rate for the years from 2012 onwards.

2. I note that the consultation document refers to other professions, but contains no details of the "success rate" in disciplinary prosecutions in those other professions. Has the SDT made an attempt compare the conviction rate in the SDT with the conviction rate in other professions (where the civil standard of proof is applied)? If so, please provide details of that comparison.

3. Has the topic of the standard of proof been the subject of correspondence between the SDT and the SRA? If so, please provide a copy of all such correspondence.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully