Meadow defends his role in conviction of Sally Clark

Meadow defends his role in conviction of mother for killing her babies

Roy Meadow, the paediatrician who has been vilified in the media for his role in the conviction of Sally Clark for murdering her two babies, broke his silence last week, insisting that he had been a reluctant witness in criminal trials.

In his opening evidence to the General Medical Council panel that is hearing accusations of serious professional misconduct against him, Professor Meadow said that testifying in court was a "great ordeal" and "unsettling."

He is accused of giving "misleading and flawed" statistical evidence in the trial of Mrs Clark, whose convictions were overturned on a second appeal.

The retired paediatrician, a former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, denies serious professional misconduct. He admitted that he had never been given any written guidelines about giving expert evidence.

He said he did not think doctors were interested in retribution, vengeance, and punishment. "It is an uncomfortable area, and I consciously run away from it."

The complaint to the GMC was brought by Frank Lockyer, the father of Mrs Clark. Mrs Clark spent three years in jail after being convicted of killing her sons Christopher and Harry. She was released by the Court of Appeal in January 2003 after judges ruled her conviction unsafe, largely because the Home Office pathologist who performed post mortem examinations on both babies had failed to disclose results of microbiological investigations on Harry that raised the possibility of death from natural causes.

Professor Meadow said he had given evidence in about 10 criminal cases before Mrs Clark’s trial. He had received some general advice that "you have just got to answer the question that is asked and not the one that you think you should have been asked."

Criminal cases, unlike those in the family courts, were a "jousting match between the advocates." Witnesses took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but it was false to say you were telling the whole truth, he said.

Professor Meadow said he was asked by police to look through the medical records of Mrs Clark and her sons and prepare a report.

In his report into the death of Harry Professor Meadow said he thought the baby had the features of physical abuse. He said the findings of the post mortem examination showed he had spinal injuries, bruising to the mouth, and bleeding behind the eyes.

In relation to Christopher, "I made it clear that, although his initial death certificate said he died from a lower respiratory tract infection, I did not think that was the case. I thought more likely, in view of both children, that he had been smothered."

The GMC charges relate to the misleading statistic Professor Meadow quoted at Mrs Clark’s trial that the chances of two cot deaths in a family like hers was "1 in 73 million." He told the hearing that he believed at the time that the latest research supported the figure.

Earlier, Peter Fleming, who led the study cited by Professor Meadow, told the panel that although the risk of a single cot death was approximately 1 in 8500 for an affluent non-smoking family the "extreme rarity" of such an event made the statistic "somewhat unreliable."

Professor Meadow said he was not claiming to be a statistician but was citing a paper that was "of very good provenance," just as he might quote "a radiologist’s report or a piece of pathology."

He admitted that it was "insensitive" to tell the court, in addition to the 1 in 73 million figure, that the likelihood that the two deaths were cot deaths was equal to the chances of successfully backing an 80 to 1 shot at the Grand National four years in a row.

The opening of his defence coincided with an editorial from Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, arguing that the paediatrician had been made a scapegoat for the failings of the legal system and should never have been brought before the GMC (Lancet 2005;366:3-5). Mrs Clark and her husband Stephen issued a statement saying they were "incensed" by Dr Horton’s intervention.

The hearing is expected to finish around 15 July.