Report comment

The SRA is already in a privileged position in the SDT: it wins almost 100% of cases, gets a costs order when the prosecution succeeds and avoids any adverse costs order when the prosecution is dismissed. It knows that most respondents don't have insurance which covers defence costs, because it abolished the need for such a cover.

None of that stops it from pushing for yet further advantages. If the SDT doesn't now bow to its will and lower the standard of proof, I suspect that it will kick up an orchestrated fuss and mount a judicial review. That appears to be the subtext of the comments made by Mr Collins.

I have a feeling that the SDT feels immensely pressurised by the SRA, but it dare not say so. It fears a bust-up with the SRA and knows that, if there is an argument, the SRA will throw enormous resources at trying to win that argument.

The SDT has not even replied to the allegation (made in the SRA's reponse to the recent consultation) that it is structurally biased. That is a serious accusation, which any other judge or tribunal would deal with immediately. The SDT has not had the courage to issue a press release or other statement answering it.

However one looks at this, it's not a healthy situation.