The retired paediatrician Roy Meadow was last week cleared by a High Court judge of criticism over his evidence in a care case six years ago. He had said in the 2000 case that a 4 month old boy probably died because he was intentionally smothered by his mother.
The boy's parents, referred to as Mr and Mrs H, recently won the right to have the medical issues in the 2000 case reviewed when care proceedings were brought against them by Birmingham City Council over the care of their third child, a girl referred to as S, who was born in July 2004.
Mr and Mrs H were forced to give up their second child for adoption and risk having their third child removed because of the finding in 2000 that Mrs H on four occasions obstructed the airways of her first child, P, who sustained brain damage and died after the fourth incident in January 1999.
In applying to have the evidence looked at again the parents criticised the evidence of Professor Meadow, one of two experts in baby P's case, and argued that their son had died from natural causes. They also claimed that Mrs H's ability to give straightforward evidence in the original case was compromised because a drug she was taking for dystonia affected her memory.
Two new experts—a senior consultant paediatrician from outside the United Kingdom and a consultant clinical physiologist—were asked to look at the evidence afresh in the light of current medical knowledge and after Professor Meadow's statistical evidence was discredited in the case of Sally Clark, whose conviction for murdering her two sons was overturned in 2003.
In a 70 page judgment Mr Justice McFarlane said: “I am driven to the firm conclusion that no criticism of Professor Meadow's role in this case can be sustained. Indeed, the passage of time and the exhaustive additional investigations have proved that, on the medical issues that were before the court in 2000, he was correct.”
Mrs Justice Bracewell's finding in 2000 that Mrs H intentionally tried to smother P on four separate occasions must stand, said the judge.
The two new experts, who were unnamed, concluded that two other causes for P's death were possible apart from smothering: a seizure, or gastro-oesophageal reflux “triggering a laryngeal chemico reaction” and reflex apnoea. But after reviewing all the evidence Mr Justice McFarlane concluded that smothering remained the most likely explanation.
The High Court will now go on to decide whether Mrs H and her husband, a senior business analyst, should be allowed to bring up their third child or be forced to give her up for adoption.
Professor Meadow, 73, was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council in 2005 over his evidence in the case of Sally Clark. But the High Court overturned the GMC's finding, and this ruling was later upheld by the Court of Appeal.