Report comment

The SDT's laudably rapid response to my email (see the posting at 12.33):

"Thank you for your email dated 16 July 2018.

In respect of the table on page 4 which states that no applications for a rehearing were made during 2016, as noted in the 2016 Annual Report this application was not included in the total number of applications (132) as it was treated as a continuation of an ongoing hearing.

You have requested “details of the conviction rate for the years from 2012 onwards”. The information that the Tribunal holds is contained in its Annual Reports which are published on the website.

You asked “ 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)?” . The Tribunal is independent and will decide in due course what standard of proof it will apply. This decision will not be determined by the standard of proof applied elsewhere. The type of comparison described has not been undertaken.

In response to your question “ Has the topic of the standard of proof been the subject of correspondence between the SDT and the SRA?” the SRA has previously stated that it considers that the Tribunal should apply the civil standard. So far as I am aware, there has been no specific correspondence between the Tribunal and SRA as to the standard of proof."