Dear University of Auckland,

Recent media coverage relating to the disciplinary proceedings involving Jonathan Sperry indicate that the panel investigating his alleged misconduct applied a "balance of probabilities" standard of proof in their adjudication.

(1) Does the University have a policy, procedures, or guidelines governing the processes of proof at disciplinary proceedings involving alleged staff misconduct -- eg, the onus and standard of proof for proving misconduct?

(2) If so, can you please provide a copy (or a link to where it can be found on the internet)?

(3) If not, when the University convenes disciplinary proceedings involving alleged staff misconduct, what is the investigating/adjudicating panel told about the burdens of production and persuasion? On whom does the onus of proof reside (the complainant, the University, or the staff member accused of misconduct)? By what standard of proof are complaints adjudicated -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a balance of probabilities, or some other standard? If the University follows a balance-of-probabilities standard for factual determinations, what instructions are the panel members given about the meaning of a balance of probabilities and what amount of evidence is necessary to find by a balance of probabilities that the alleged misconduct occurred?

Yours faithfully,

CL Rainwater