SHOULD expert medical witnesses be allowed to say what they like in court without fear of censure, even when they unintentionally mislead the jury? This was the question last week after a ruling by the high court in London reinstated a prominent paediatrician who had been struck off the medical register.
Last July the General Medical Council which regulates British doctors found Roy Meadow guilty of 鈥渟erious professional misconduct鈥�. The GMC ruled that Meadow had inadvertently misled a jury that convicted Sally Clark in 1999 of murdering two of her sons, who she said had died of 鈥渃ot death鈥�. Clark was cleared on appeal in 2003, as were three other women convicted in cases where Meadow had given evidence.
Meadow had told the Clark jury that there was only a 1 in 73,000,000 chance of two sudden infant deaths in the same family (New 杏吧原创, 23 February 2002, p 12). In its ruling, the GMC said that Meadow had misunderstood the statistics by ignoring evidence that one sudden infant death in a family could increase the likelihood of a second.
Advertisement
鈥淗e ignored evidence that one death in a family could increase chances of a second鈥�
Last week, the high court overturned the GMC鈥檚 ruling, effectively reinstating Meadow鈥檚 registration and clearing him of misconduct. 鈥淚 am relieved,鈥� says Meadow. 鈥淐hildren can only be protected if those who fear abuse are able to give their honest opinion without fear of retribution.鈥�
However, the GMC fears that the ruling sets a precedent, giving expert witnesses immunity from professional censure.
