Debate over standard of proof at GOC

The General Optical Council has started a consultation on which standard of proof - criminal or civil - should be used to judge the truth of facts presented at disciplinary hearings.

The Bar Council and the Department of Health are among the groups the GOC is directly asking for comment, although it welcomes input from individuals as well.

They are invited to say whether they think the civil or criminal standard should be used to decide whether a fact presented has been proved or not. Criminal courts are usually directed to judge whether a fact has been proven 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Civil courts decide 'on the balance of probabilities', meaning a fact is deemed to be proven if they find it more likely to be true than not.

'The GOC has an open mind on this question,' said deputy chairman Geoff Harris (pictured). 'We recognise that the standard of proof is an important issue for both the public and the professions, so it's essential that the basis for any decision is well-informed and inclusive.'

Changes to the Opticians Act last year created a new structure for hearings. Independent hearings panel members sit on the fitness to practise or registration appeals committees, to decide cases such as allegations of misconduct or deficient performance, applications for restoration and appeals against registration decisions.

There is no explicit rule stating which standard of proof should be applied.

The consultation will last until March 31, and documents are available on the GOC website.