Kippaxpete
Well-Known Member
While I'm happy to be corrected, my understanding is that any evidence is likely to be considered by reference to the lower burden of proof applied in all civil proceedings, that being the 'balance of probability'. Once a thorough investigation has been completed, it is for the complainant (in this case the Premiership) to present evidence in support of their case to demonstrate it was more likely the club were in breach than not. This is very much a double-edged sword though in that, while it isn't necessary for the Premiership to find evidence of a 'smoking gun' as it were (i.e. to meet the 'beyond reasonable doubt' threshold'), they need to be able to make a persuasive argument to the so-called 'independent commission' that their interpretation of the rules is beyond question and how those rules were breached.I think it's 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a criminal case, but the burden of proof isn't as high in a civil case. Not sure how it's worded but it's along the lines of reasonable standard I think.
Last edited: