The General Medical Council's decision to bar a leading consultant paediatrician, David Southall, from child protection work for three years is to be challenged as “unduly lenient” in the high court by the healthcare professions' watchdog, the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence (CHRE).
Professor Southall was found guilty of serious professional misconduct after he accused Stephen Clark of murdering his two infant sons on the basis of seeing him interviewed in a television documentary. Mr Clark, whose wife Sally's conviction for murdering babies Christopher and Harry was later overturned on appeal, was describing a nosebleed experienced by Christopher at a London hotel in 1996. Christopher died at home aged 11 weeks, nine days after the incident. Professor Southall concluded that Mr Clark must have tried to smother Christopher. He contacted the child protection team and later wrote a report claiming that Mr Clark's guilt was “certain or near-certain.”
The GMC's professional conduct committee, which imposed the ban last August, said Professor Southall had failed to take reasonable steps to verify his allegations when he produced a report on the Clark family in August 2000. He had not apologised or taken any steps to withdraw his allegations.
But after receiving a large number of testimonials arguing that his 30 year record of pioneering work should be taken into account, the committee decided not to suspend Professor Southall from practice or to strike him off the medical register. Doctors who spoke up for him said that striking him off would have a catastrophic effect on the already low morale of paediatricians doing child abuse work.
Sandy Forrest, CHRE's director, said: “I can confirm that following a case meeting of council members, the CHRE has referred the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical Council in relation to the Professor Southall case to the High Court.”
CHRE has acted under powers in the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 to refer “unduly lenient” decisions by regulators to the High Court in the interests of public protection.