Report comment

"Edward Nally, president of the tribunal, today denied the reform makes it ‘easier’ for prosecutors to secure misconduct rulings against individuals."

If Mr Nally did say those words, they're plainly wrong and he should withdraw them. Moving to a lower standard of proof obviously makes it easier for the SRA to secure a misconduct ruling.

Perhaps Mr Nally's unspoken point is that it will make no practical difference, because (i) cases in the SDT rarely turn upon disputes of fact and (ii) the SRA wins almost every case anyway.

The real problem, which the SDT has failed to address, is the inequality of arms. Most respondents do not have insurance which covers the costs of defending proceedings in the SDT, because the SRA removed such cover from the minimum terms. By contrast, the SRA has almost limitless resources.

The other point which the SDT fails to address is that tribunals in other professions do not routinely make the kind of eye-watering costs orders which the SDT makes in favour of the SRA.