No immunity for medical expert witnesses

General Medical Council v Meadow & Attorney General (Intervenor) [2006] EWCA Civ 1390; The Times , October 31, 2006: The Independent , October 31, 2006

Counsel: For the appellant: Roger Henderson QC,Adam Heppinstall For the respondent: Nicola Davies QC, Ian Winter, Kate Gallafent For the intervenor: Lord Goldsmith QC (Attorney General), Jonathan Crow, Ben Watson Solicitors: For the appellant: In-house solicitor For the respondent: Hempsons

This appeal was brought by the GMC against a ruling that Sir Roy Meadow, as an expert witness could be entitled to immunity from disciplinary proceedings in relation to evidence he had given in legal proceedings, and against the finding that he had not been guilty of serious professional misconduct, (see (2006) EWHC 146 (Admin), (2006) 1 WLR 1452). Sir Roy Meadow had given evidence for the prosecution at the trial of Sally Clark for the murder of her two sons. Inter alia, the Crown had relied strongly on Sir Roy Meadow’s evidence to refute the defence hypothesis that the babies could have died as a result of sudden infant death syndrome. It is, of course, well-known that Sally Clark was convicted at the original trial. Her first appeal against conviction was dismissed, but her second appeal was allowed on the ground that the verdicts were unsafe. It emerged that there had been a material non-disclosure by Sir Roy Meadow. Although all the arguments relating to the unreliability of the Crown’s expert evidence were not heard in the course of the second appeal, the court indicated that, if those arguments had been relevant, the appeal would probably also have been successful on those grounds. Sally Clark’s father had complained to the GMC alleging that Sir Roy Meadow had been guilty of serious professional misconduct. In those disciplinary proceedings, the GMC’s Fitness to Practise Panel had found him guilty of serious professional misconduct, but the High Court had allowed an appeal by Sir Roy Meadow. The judge had ruled that an expert witness should have immunity in disciplinary proceedings by a professional body unless his conduct had been referred by the trial judge as having fallen seriously below the standard expected of him. The GMC, with the Attorney General, intervening, argued that the immunity enjoyed by witnesses in legal proceedings should not be extended unless that decision was made by Parliament. The decision to provide expert witnesses with immunity from disciplinary proceedings in respect of their evidence in legal proceedings was a significant matter of public importance, according to that argument, and the GMC contended that the High Court judge had not given adequate deference to the decision of the panel, and had been in error in finding that Sir Roy Meadow was not guilty of serious professional misconduct.