‘The Legal Services Board (LSB) has approved the change in the standard of proof used by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) to the civil standard.’
Legal Futures, 29th July 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court’s recent clarification of the ‘serious harm’ threshold for defamation claims has been welcomed by newspapers as a victory for free speech. In fact, it is more likely to mean escalating costs and uncertainty for claimants and defendants alike.’
Law Society's Gazette, 8th July 2019
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Concerns over the decision of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) to move from the criminal to the civil standard of proof are “misplaced”, the tribunal’s president has said.’
Legal Futures, 26th June 2019
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The Court held that a Coroner was entitled to remain unsure about the particulars of the death of an individual who was shot by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.’
Park Square Barristers, 16th November 2018
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
‘A recent decision on the evidential standard of proof required for a coroner or jury to return a conclusion of suicide could lead to an increased number of “suicide” conclusions being upheld, and a change in the rules surrounding the burden of proof applied at inquests in the future.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th September 2018
Source: www.out-law.com
‘On 26 July, Leggatt LJ, sitting with Nicol J, handed down a judgment that challenges the long-held view that suicide must be proved to the criminal standard of proof in an inquest. Leggatt LJ, considering the purpose of modern coroner’s courts and the relevant jurisprudence, held that the correct standard of proof to be applied is the normal civil standard of balance of probabilities.’
Henderson Chambers, 31st July 2018
‘The received wisdom, supported by all leading texts on coroner’s law is that in order for a Coroner or jury to return a verdict of suicide in an inquest, the fact that the deceased deliberately took his own life must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, or in other words, to the criminal standard of proof.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 28th July 2018
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Court of Appeal has held that proceedings for a gang injunction under Part 4, Policing and Crime Act 2009 (the “2009 Act”) and an anti-social behaviour injunction under Part 1, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”) do not involve the determination of a criminal charge and therefore do not engage Articles 6(2) or 6(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Nor does the requirement of a fair trial under Article 6(1) require the criminal standard of proof to be applied.’
Arden Chambers, 23rd May 2018
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘John Gould puts disciplinary procedures & the standard of proof required by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal under the spotlight.’
New Law Journal, 1st June 2018
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has upheld a ‘gang injunction’ restricting the actions and movement of 18 members of a Birmingham gang. One of the men affected, Jerome Jones, unsuccessfully challenged the injunction, arguing that the proceedings by which it was made properly required proof to the criminal standard, and that the application of the civil standard violated his right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 31st May 2018
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Legal Services Board (LSB) has been warned against trying to force the introduction of the civil standard of proof in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) without proper consultation.’
Legal Futures, 29th September 2017
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
S v Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] EWHC 1162 (Admin)
‘The defendant was charged with an offence of tampering with a motor vehicle contrary to section 25 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and tried before justices in the Youth Court. The justices dismissed a submission by the defendant that there was no case to answer and, having heard evidence from the defendant and considered the burden and standard of proof, the justices convicted him. A contemporaneuos note of the justices’ reasons read, inter alia: “We listened to the [defendant’s] evidence which did not persuade us that there was no intention to tamper with the [motor vehicle]. We are therefore sure you are guilty.”’
WLR Daily, 18th May 2017
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘It’s the UK’s leading cause of death for young people, but the way suicides are recorded may reduce the true number by 30-50% while perpetuating stigma.’
The Guardian, 9th January 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Administrative Court has upheld an anti-social behaviour order prohibiting a man from engaging in any behavior likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any of a local authority’s employees for five years.’
Local Government Lawyer, 11th February 2016
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2019