What is the difference between the urden of proof and the standard of proof?
There is a clear distinction between the burden of proof on the one hand and the standard of proof on the other hand. The expression ‘the burden of proof’ refers to the requirement that, in any disciplinary proceedings, it is for the body bringing the charges to prove it. A practitioner against whom allegations are made does not have to prove anything. We are not making any changes as far as the burden of proof is concerned. In GMC proceedings it always has been, and will remain, the case that it is for the Council, which makes the allegations, to prove them to the satisfaction of the Panel. The standard of proof refers to what needs to be done in order to satisfy a tribunal of some given fact. The standard of proof is the criterion against which evidence is assessed by the body which has to come to the decision. The standard of proof applicable in criminal proceedings is proof beyond reasonable doubt; conventionally, juries are directed by judges not to convict unless they are sure of
