MEADOW V GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL [2006] EWHC 146 (Admin)
FACTS:-
Professor Roy Meadow was an eminent paediatrician. In 1977 he wrote and had published in the Lancet an article entitled “Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy. The Hinterland of Child Abuse.” This led to awareness that false illnesses in children were being created. Professor Meadow was employed by the authorities in high profile prosecutions involving the suspected abuse of children.
In 1998, Professor Meadow was asked to advise in the deaths of two children, Christopher and Harry Clark, who were the sons of Sally Clark, both of whom died when a few weeks old. He gave evidence in court and Sally Clark was convicted. The conviction was later overturned in 2002 when it was discovered that important microbiological tests had not been disclosed by the pathologist.
A complaint was brought to the General Medical Council by Sally Clark’s father, who found serious professional misconduct and struck Professor Meadow’s name from the register. However they also found that he had acted in good faith.
Professor Meadow appealed against that decision to the High Court.
JUDGMENT:-
Mr Justice Collins said it was particularly worrying that disciplinary action might result even if reports had been prepared and evidence given in good faith. There had been submissions made by the Expert Witness Institute to this effect.
One point to make at the outset of the case was the immunity from suit of a witness in respect of evidence that he gives in a court of law. That immunity applied as much to an expert as to any other witness. X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633 approving Evans v London Hospital Medical College and Others [1981] 1 WLR 184. He also referred to the case of Darker v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2001] 1 AC 435. That case was concerned with a claim that police officers had fabricated evidence against the Claimants. A distinction was drawn between evidence that was fabricated by a police officer and false evidence given by a police officer.
In this case it was accepted that Professor Meadows would be immune from civil suit in respect of the matters alleged against him. However the question arose as to whether immunity from suit should be extended to provide immunity from disciplinary proceedings.
Immunity from suit extended to the honest as well as the dishonest witness and was based on public policy. He referred to the cases of Stanton v Callaghan [2000] 1 QB 75 and Darker as well as Watson v McEwen [1905] AC 480. However in Darker the House of Lords said that the protection should not be given any wider application than was absolutely necessary in the interests of the administration of justice.
Collins J said that whilst all the authorities concerned immunity from suit, the rationale behind the rules which was recognized by that observation led him to the view that not only was there no reason in principle why it should not apply to disciplinary proceedings but every reason why it should so apply. There could be no doubt that the administration of justice had been seriously damaged by the decision of the General Medical Council and the damage would continue unless it was made clear that such proceedings need not be feared by the expert witness.
The precise boundaries of an immunity would have to be established on a case by case basis. What was of fundamental importance was that a witness could be assured that if he gave his evidence honestly and in good faith, he would not be involved in any proceedings brought against him seeking to penalise him.
Collins J considered the evidence that Professor Meadows had given. Essentially his evidence had been in the trial of Sally Clark that the chances of two cot deaths in one family were 1:1,000,000. However other expert evidence suggested that extraneous factors might make cot death more likely. The General Medical Council said that he should have refrained from dealing with statistics, which were outside his expertise. However Professor Meadows had honestly and as he believed, correctly relied on his understanding of the statistics and he had never put himself forward as an expert.
Therefore the appeal against the finding of serious professional misconduct would be allowed.
FACTS:-
Professor Roy Meadow was an eminent paediatrician. In 1977 he wrote and had published in the Lancet an article entitled “Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy. The Hinterland of Child Abuse.” This led to awareness that false illnesses in children were being created. Professor Meadow was employed by the authorities in high profile prosecutions involving the suspected abuse of children.
In 1998, Professor Meadow was asked to advise in the deaths of two children, Christopher and Harry Clark, who were the sons of Sally Clark, both of whom died when a few weeks old. He gave evidence in court and Sally Clark was convicted. The conviction was later overturned in 2002 when it was discovered that important microbiological tests had not been disclosed by the pathologist.
A complaint was brought to the General Medical Council by Sally Clark’s father, who found serious professional misconduct and struck Professor Meadow’s name from the register. However they also found that he had acted in good faith.
Professor Meadow appealed against that decision to the High Court.
JUDGMENT:-
Mr Justice Collins said it was particularly worrying that disciplinary action might result even if reports had been prepared and evidence given in good faith. There had been submissions made by the Expert Witness Institute to this effect.
One point to make at the outset of the case was the immunity from suit of a witness in respect of evidence that he gives in a court of law. That immunity applied as much to an expert as to any other witness. X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633 approving Evans v London Hospital Medical College and Others [1981] 1 WLR 184. He also referred to the case of Darker v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2001] 1 AC 435. That case was concerned with a claim that police officers had fabricated evidence against the Claimants. A distinction was drawn between evidence that was fabricated by a police officer and false evidence given by a police officer.
In this case it was accepted that Professor Meadows would be immune from civil suit in respect of the matters alleged against him. However the question arose as to whether immunity from suit should be extended to provide immunity from disciplinary proceedings.
Immunity from suit extended to the honest as well as the dishonest witness and was based on public policy. He referred to the cases of Stanton v Callaghan [2000] 1 QB 75 and Darker as well as Watson v McEwen [1905] AC 480. However in Darker the House of Lords said that the protection should not be given any wider application than was absolutely necessary in the interests of the administration of justice.
Collins J said that whilst all the authorities concerned immunity from suit, the rationale behind the rules which was recognized by that observation led him to the view that not only was there no reason in principle why it should not apply to disciplinary proceedings but every reason why it should so apply. There could be no doubt that the administration of justice had been seriously damaged by the decision of the General Medical Council and the damage would continue unless it was made clear that such proceedings need not be feared by the expert witness.
The precise boundaries of an immunity would have to be established on a case by case basis. What was of fundamental importance was that a witness could be assured that if he gave his evidence honestly and in good faith, he would not be involved in any proceedings brought against him seeking to penalise him.
Collins J considered the evidence that Professor Meadows had given. Essentially his evidence had been in the trial of Sally Clark that the chances of two cot deaths in one family were 1:1,000,000. However other expert evidence suggested that extraneous factors might make cot death more likely. The General Medical Council said that he should have refrained from dealing with statistics, which were outside his expertise. However Professor Meadows had honestly and as he believed, correctly relied on his understanding of the statistics and he had never put himself forward as an expert.
Therefore the appeal against the finding of serious professional misconduct would be allowed.