Report comment

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.

Comment

Anon @ 10.03 - I don't quite get the argument about the 2:1 decision on some charges justifying an appeal.

Firstly, I think the 2:1 decision is obviously relevant when looking at whether it was reasonable to bring the case in the first place. I think there are still very serious questions about that, and contact with the MOD and MOJ, but it's difficult to argue the case had no prospects at all when 1 tribunal member has agreed with it. It is the appeal which in my view raises severe questions on the SRA's decision making.

The SRA was not appealing any legal points. If they were, then yes, I think a 2:1 decision on those points would be encouraging for an appeal. However, the SRA did not argue that the SDT had got the law wrong. So immediately any appeal becomes (much) harder.

The majority decision becomes *the* decision of the lower court/tribunal. The minority decision is essentially ignored. At best it is an indication that a different view was possible, but that is not the test for an appeal.

On issues of fact, or conclusions based on the facts, any appeal is always going to be an uphill struggle. My view is that if anything, challenging decisions on the facts becomes harder when 3 people were involved, as you are arguing more people came to a decision that was wrong to such a degree that the appeal court should interfere.

It is obviously said with hindsight, but the appeal court were in no doubt whatsoever that there was no realistic hope of overturning the conclusions reached by the SDT. Personally, I really struggle to believe that the advice given to the SRA by Leading Counsel said anything significantly different.

Despite its supposed transparency agenda, I have no doubt whatsoever that the SRA will not release that advice.

Your details

Cancel