Standard of Proof

In order to carry out its function as a public inquiry, the Undercover Policing Inquiry needs to make recommendations based on findings having examined the evidence. In other words, the Inquiry Chair considers the apparent facts from which they then draw conclusions.

From a legal perspective, this immediately raises the question of what is the standard of proof to be applied in order to be able to draw a conclusion. In English and Welsh law, there are several different standards.

Having invited written submissions, the then Chair, Sir Christopher Pitchford, made the following decision (without having an oral hearing) that he would: 

… apply to issues of fact that arise in the evidence given to the Inquiry a flexible and variable standard of proof. By that I mean:

(i) My starting point for most decisions of fact should be the civil standard, the balance of probabilities, but I should not be bound by it because:

(ii) Depending upon what the issue is, it will be more useful if, having examined the evidence, I express my state of certainty or uncertainty upon it with such accuracy as I can. Standard of Proof (Ruling), Includes as Annexes: 1) CTI’s Note on the Standard of Proof as Annex 1, along with a table of the standards of proof as adopted by other inquireis, and 2) the Chair’s Minded To Note on the issue, 13 Jan 2016, UCPI.View Document

The civil standard of proof being referred to here is ‘on the balance of probabilities’. This is different from the much higher bar used in criminal cases of certainty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.