5.86 In our Consultation Paper we considered the merits of amending the reporting threshold to reasonable grounds to suspect. We set out our case for adopting a cumulative test of subjective suspicion coupled with objective supporting grounds based on the interpretation in R v Saik.
5.87 We acknowledged the challenge in amending the threshold for both required and authorised disclosures bearing in mind the fact that both derive explicitly from the primary legislation. We offered a method for achieving this change. We proposed two discrete legislative amendments designed to have an impact on the two distinct forms of disclosure prompted by the current regime.
5.88 First, we provisionally proposed amending the threshold for reporting under sections 330-332 to «reasonable grounds to suspect». We suggested that this higher threshold would introduce a qualitative standard to suspicion, and import considerations of strength and cogency. It would thereby improve the quality of intelligence provided by reporters.
5.89 Secondly, we proposed that a new defence should be introduced for the regulated sector so that an authorised disclosure would not be required where the reporter did not have reasonable grounds to suspect.
5.90 We concluded that the overall change to the reporting threshold achieved by these measures could reduce the number of poor quality or low intelligence value disclosures. If the reporter did not have objective grounds for their suspicion, there would be no obligation to report. Likewise, the specific defence we proposed would free reporters from the risk of committing a money laundering offence. As the risk of liability would be removed, an authorised disclosure would not be triggered. The following flow charts demonstrate how such a change would work in practice.