Doctors acting as expert witnesses in court must ensure that they stay within the limits of their professional competence, says draft guidance from the UK General Medical Council.
The guidance follows controversy over the role of the retired paediatrician Roy Meadow in giving misleading statistical evidence in the case of Sally Clark, a solicitor convicted of murdering her two baby sons and later freed on appeal.
Professor Meadow gave evidence that proved to be wrong at Mrs Clark's trial in 1999 about the risk of two cot deaths in a family like hers even though he had no statistical expertise.
He was ordered to be struck off the medical register for serious professional misconduct by a GMC panel, but the order was overturned by the High Court. The Court of Appeal ruled last October that although his conduct fell short of the proper standards, it did not amount to serious professional misconduct (BMJ 2006;333:933).
The guidance says, “You must provide advice and evidence only within the limits of your professional competence. When giving evidence or writing reports, you must restrict your statements to areas in which you have relevant knowledge or direct experience.
“You should be aware of the standards and nature of practice at the time of the incident under proceedings. If a particular question or issue falls outside your area of expertise, you should make this clear and, where appropriate, seek advice from an expert in the relevant field.”
It adds that any report or evidence must be accurate and must be checked to make sure that it is not misleading. “This means that you must take reasonable steps to verify any information you provide, and you must not deliberately leave out relevant information. You must be honest, trustworthy, objective and impartial.”
Doctors who become aware while acting as an expert witness that someone is at risk of serious harm or death must report their concerns to the appropriate person or organisation, but may not disclose documents that are covered by legal privilege, the guidance says.
The guidance was issued with separate draft recommendations for doctors on writing references, another area which has given rise to problems. Doctors have faced disciplinary charges for leaving out information about former colleagues that could have alerted prospective employers to concerns about them.
Inaccurate references could lead to the appointment of an unsuitable candidate, which in some cases could put patients at risk of harm, the GMC said.
The guidance says that referees should include all information they are aware of that is relevant to a candidate's professional competence. They should also provide information about the candidate's conduct “including matters that might affect public trust in the individual candidate or the profession as a whole.”
Both drafts, which are open for consultation until 26 March, are available at https://gmc.e-consultation.net/references_expert_witnesses/index_https.asp.