With respect, I'm not sure that's accurate. (Sure you're about to put me in my place now!!)
It’s accurate in what I experience, but whether this is City’s case I don’t know.
The normal situation is that an enquiry would be done and a charged raised if they had enough evidence (I’m not sure this is the case in City’s case).
Then the bigger the infringement, accusation can have different thresholds and burden of proof.
You could have something minor and have to prove the claims false on the balance of probabilities.
Higher accusations such as fraud would be the accuser proving their case and beyond resonable doubt.
However, different places will have different rules and you could well be right and City won’t.
My point more is that I think the independent commission whilst being fair, we would be better off with it being a truly independent.
For example, both parties submit their case, evidence/ skeleton arguments prior to the hearing. I can see that they will start with the PL one and then take it from there (small marginal gains).
Although I can’t see the case being decided on them.