Court clears Meadow to practise again
Families angered as medical experts in child death cases gain
immunity
Claire Dyer and Sandra Laville
Saturday February 18, 2006
The Guardian
Doctors who give mistaken expert evidence in child abuse cases
were granted
immunity in law from disciplinary action yesterday in a groundbreaking
high
court ruling that cleared the controversial paediatrician Professor
Sir Roy
Meadow of serious professional misconduct.
Mr Justice Collins said Prof Meadow, 73, should never have been
struck off
the medical register by the General Medical Council for providing
mistaken
statistical evidence that may helped wrongfully convict the solicitor
Sally
Clark of murdering her two babies. He said the case should never
have been
heard in the first place by the disciplinary body.
Prof Meadow and other paediatricians welcomed the ruling, saying
doctors had
been deterred from appearing in child abuse cases for fear of
parents taking
them to the GMC.
"We hope that the decision will give confidence back to
paediatricians,
whose responsibility and role is so important in the protection
of children
and who can contribute so much in the position of expert witnesses,"
said a
spokeswoman for the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
But women who have spent years in prison after being convicted
of killing
their babies in cases in which Prof Meadow gave evidence said
they feared
the ruling would make doctors untouchable. Angela Cannings, who
was wrongly
convicted of double murder in a case in which he gave evidence
for the
prosecution said: "It is very hard for us personally to accept
when expert
witnesses do make mistakes in the courtroom and you have a knock-on
devastation effect on families involved."
Prof Meadow, who was not in court to hear his name being cleared
after seven
years of controversy over his evidence in the Clark trial, may
face further
complaints. Five families want to pursue GMC hearings against
him and
lawyers are studying yesterday's ruling to see whether they will
be able to
take the cases.
Prof Meadow, was found guilty of serious professional misconduct
and ordered
to be struck off the medical register by the GMC last year for
giving what
the panel said was "erroneous" evidence in the Clark
trial. Prof Meadow told
the court in 1999 the chances of two cot deaths in a family like
the Clark's
was one in 73 million. But that figure is wrong and some experts
put it as
low as one in 77.
Mr Justice Collins overturned their findings yesterday, breaking
new ground
in saying that the rule which protects witnesses in court proceedings
from
being sued in the civil courts - so called witness immunity -
also extends
to disciplinary proceedings.
The judgment means that expert witnesses who give mistaken evidence
in good
faith, as both the appeal court and GMC found Professor Meadows
did, will be
immune from proceedings from the GMC and other disciplinary bodies
except in
the unlikely event of a judge referring the case to a disciplinary
body. Mr
Justice Collins said this was to prevent expert witnesses from
being
deterred from coming forward.
The judge said: "There can be no doubt that the administration
of justice
has been seriously damaged by the decision ... in this case and
the damage
will continue unless it is made clear that such proceedings need
not be
feared by the expert witness."
Describing Prof Meadow as a first-class paediatrician, he said
that erasing
him from the register had been "quite unnecessary".
In his view Professor
Meadows' failings did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
The
Judge said Professor Meadow had made one mistake in his evidence
- he
misunderstood and misinterpreted the statistics.
"It was a mistake, as the panel accepted, that was easily
and widely made.
To say, as the GMC panel did, that his conduct was 'fundamentally
incompatible with what is expected from the public by a registered
medical
practitioner' approaches the irrational," he said.
In a statement, Prof Meadow said it was an important ruling for
paediatricians and all doctors, nurses, teachers and other professionals
who
sometimes had to express difficult and sometimes unpopular opinions
in
court.
"They should be able to do so without the fear of prosecution
by the General
Medical Council or other professional regulators," he said.
Sally Clark's father, Frank Lockyer, a retired police superintendent,
who
took the case to the GMC, said his aim of ensuring "accountability"
had been
achieved despite the ruling.
Mr Lockyer said: "A GMC panel of six, three of them doctors,
considered what
he did was serious professional misconduct. Today, a lone judge
considers it
wasn't." The consequences of Professor Meadow's mistake,
he said, had been
devastating for his daughter who spent four years in prison and
was still
suffering.
The GMC, which may appeal, said the judgment had important implications
for
them and all professional regulators. Such immunity would place
doctors and
other professionals beyond the reach of their regulator when writing
reports
for the courts or giving evidence. The only exceptions would be
if the judge
complained to the regulator.
