GMC and attorney general challenge immunity for witnesses

The attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, went to the Court of Appeal in London this week to try to overturn a High Court ruling that gave expert witnesses in court cases virtual immunity from disciplinary action by regulators over flawed evidence.

Lord Goldsmith, the UK government's senior law officer, intervened in an appeal by the General Medical Council against a ruling last February by a High Court judge, Mr Justice Collins, that cleared Roy Meadow of serious professional misconduct.

The retired paediatrician gave misleading evidence about the likelihood of two cot deaths in one family at the trial of Sally Clark for murdering her two babies in 1999. Mrs Clark's convictions were quashed at a second appeal in 2003.

After a complaint by her father, the GMC found Professor Meadow guilty of serious misconduct last July and ordered him to be struck off the medical register.

Mr Justice Collins ruled not only that Professor Meadow was not guilty of serious professional misconduct but that he should never have been brought before the GMC. The judge held that the rule that gives witnesses immunity from lawsuits over evidence given in court also extends to disciplinary action by regulators.

Lord Goldsmith took no issue with the judge's findings on Professor Meadow but argued that Mr Justice Collins's ruling that witnesses could not be brought before regulators unless a judge complained of their conduct was “an illegitimate development for the common law.”

Figure 1.

Lawyers for Professor Roy Meadow (above) argued that immunity should be absolute

Credit: PNS/REX

The GMC is not contesting the judge's decision that the paediatrician should remain on the medical register, but it argues that although it accepts that he acted in good faith it was right to find him guilty of serious professional misconduct.

Roger Henderson QC, for the GMC, told the three appeal court judges that immunity would make it harder to keep rogue experts out of the courts. “Dangerous expert witnesses and practitioners... should be prevented from continuing to endanger the court process,” he said.

Professor Meadow's lawyers argue that the immunity should be absolute, except where the testimony amounts to perjury, perverting the course of justice, or contempt of court, and that not even a judge should have power to refer an expert witness for disciplinary action.

Lord Justice Thorpe, one of the three appeal judges, noted during the hearing that the aftermath of the Clark case and that of Angela Cannings, whose convictions for murdering two babies were also quashed, was “having a dire effect on the willingness of practitioners to give evidence in the family courts.”

Judgment was reserved after the three day hearing.