Report comment

Just read Mr Nally's words again:
‘The tribunal will continue to scrutinise robustly all allegations brought before it, and will continue to look for and identify cogent and compelling evidence before finding allegations proved,’ he said.
I'm not sure I would wish to act for any defendant before a tribunal with such an ethos...

How is it rational to deny that a lower standard of proof makes the prosecutor's job easier? Surely some straightforward honesty is what is needed. Something along the lines of: "In the vast majority of cases the evidence of misconduct/dishonesty is overwhelming. To date, these are the cases we have focused on. However, there are numerous other cases we have considered which we believe would and should have been brought before the Tribunal, had the burden been the civil standard. With the lower burden we acknowledge the need for the SRA to carry out detailed and considered investigations before bringing any matter before the Tribunal and for the Tribunal to play a central role in ensuring fairness, both for the benefit of the public and the profession."

One question though; in most meaningful Civil claims, say one that stands to cost a litigant his or her solvency or livelihood, both parties are at risk on costs. This can focus the mind and few rational and well-advised parties roll the dice on getting 51% of the way there...

It will be interesting to see if the prosecution rate actually falls. If it does then I hope the SRA will, groan, learn the lessons...