I'm not really sure what they mean by that. I would have to ask them what they meant by that.
In order to arrive at a finding of wrongdoing, there has to be evidence on a balance of probabilities. I'm only guessing now, but it may be that some perceive that to be tipping the scales in favour of the respondent in the cases. If we have some information or some indication, but not on a balance of probabilities, I could not, under the law, come to a conclusion that there has been wrongdoing.
It is possible that some people perceive that to be tipping the scales in favour of an alleged wrongdoer. At the same time, principles of natural justice apply and due process applies. The balance of probabilities is the test that I am required to apply.