*/
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has proposed adopting the civil standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings against barristers charged with professional misconduct.
The current standard of proof used is the criminal standard which is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ or ‘satisfied so as to be sure’. But the BSB is seeking views on whether its regulatory arrangements should be changed to allow the civil standard of proof, ‘on the balance of probabilities’ or ‘more likely than not’ to be applied.
The change would bring it in line with other professional regulators, including the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the General Medical Council.
Commenting on the proposal, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Francis FitzGibbon QC said: ‘The issue is not an academic one. Anyone who has been involved with Bar disciplinary proceedings knows that the process is agonising and the stakes are high.’
He said: ‘We risk our professional integrity at our peril, and we should not expect the public to respect us if we appear soft on serious misconduct.’
The criminal standard, he said, puts misconduct on a par with actual crime, and marks how seriously it is taken. But, he said: ‘It’s reasonable to ask why so high a standard is needed and why the balance of probabilities does not suffice.’
The consultation, Review of the Standard of Proof Applied in Professional Misconduct Proceedings, closes on 21 July.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has proposed adopting the civil standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings against barristers charged with professional misconduct.
The current standard of proof used is the criminal standard which is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ or ‘satisfied so as to be sure’. But the BSB is seeking views on whether its regulatory arrangements should be changed to allow the civil standard of proof, ‘on the balance of probabilities’ or ‘more likely than not’ to be applied.
The change would bring it in line with other professional regulators, including the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the General Medical Council.
Commenting on the proposal, Chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Francis FitzGibbon QC said: ‘The issue is not an academic one. Anyone who has been involved with Bar disciplinary proceedings knows that the process is agonising and the stakes are high.’
He said: ‘We risk our professional integrity at our peril, and we should not expect the public to respect us if we appear soft on serious misconduct.’
The criminal standard, he said, puts misconduct on a par with actual crime, and marks how seriously it is taken. But, he said: ‘It’s reasonable to ask why so high a standard is needed and why the balance of probabilities does not suffice.’
The consultation, Review of the Standard of Proof Applied in Professional Misconduct Proceedings, closes on 21 July.
Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights some of the key achievements at the Bar Council this year
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management highlights some of the ways you can cut your IHT bill
Rachel Davenport breaks down everything you need to know about AlphaBiolabs’ industry-leading laboratory testing services for legal matters
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
Mark Neale, Director General of the Bar Standards Board, offers an update on the Equality Rules consultation
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
Imposing a professional obligation to act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion is the wrong way to achieve this ambition, says Nick Vineall KC
Tom Cosgrove KC looks at the government’s radical planning reform and the opportunities and challenges ahead for practitioners
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
