header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 October 2011 / Stewart Duffy
Issue: 7486 / Categories: Features , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

An alternative prescription

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Stewart Duffy examines the standard of proof before regulators of the healthcare professions

Prior to 2008, the major statutory regulators of the healthcare professions had applied the criminal standard of proof in determining allegations of misconduct against practitioners. They had done so as a matter of custom and practice in a statutory vacuum. In July 2008 Parliament passed the Health and Social Care Act 2008, s 112 of which requires disciplinary panels of the General Medical Council (GMC), General Dental Council (GDC), Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and General Optical Council (GOC) to apply the standard of proof which “is that applicable in civil proceedings” (the new rule). That was the same language which the GMC had adopted several months earlier when it amended its Fitness to Practise Procedure rules.

The new rule could easily have been expressed in different terms. The statutory rules governing police disciplinaries and school exclusion decisions expressly require facts to be proved “on the balance of probabilities”. That was not the formula adopted by Parliament for the healthcare regulators. Nonetheless,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll