That's excellent.
Secondly, on the issue of burden of proof, you've been making the argument for some time that the burden of proof ought not to be on the whistle-blower. And I agree with you. My understanding of common law is that in tribunals of this sort it is predicated on a balance of probabilities. So the burden of proof will not be on the whistle-blower in this tribunal of judges; it will be a balance of probabilities in which both sides will make their arguments and the tribunal will decide.
If it were based on the balance of probabilities, would you agree with that as a fair approach?