Omen writes

The standard of proof
It could not be long before the Human Rights Act and Dame Janet Brown's Shipman Report came together to question the criminal standard of proof that the General Optical Council's Disciplinary Committee has used to determine the guilt or innocence of members of the professions in cases of serious professional misconduct.

Life has moved on and the Disciplinary Committee has now become the Fitness to Practise Committee operating, thanks again to human rights legislation, at arm's length from the GOC. The Committee will deal with a wider range of infringements from deficient performance to what was known as serious professional misconduct.

The question has now been asked as to whether the criminal standard of proof as used by the GOC, and other registration bodies, is appropriate to protecting the public in today's climate or if a civil standard of proof should now be used.

This raises complex questions about whether a standard which requires proof to be beyond reasonable doubt or one that is based on a balance of probabilities best protects the public.

The GOC, to its credit, has taken a cautious approach to this matter and is committed to consult with stakeholders. A legal opinion, based on precedents and current practice among the newer regulatory bodies, has suggested that the criminal standard is no longer appropriate but that a 'flexible' civil standard should be adopted.