Attorney general is to intervene in case of expert witness immunity

Attorney general is to intervene in case of expert witness immunity

Clare Dyer, legal correspondent

The attorney general, the senior law officer for England and Wales, is to intervene in the General Medical Council’s forthcoming appeal against a high court ruling that expert witnesses are immune from disciplinary proceedings over their courtroom evidence.

Lord Goldsmith has asked the Court of Appeal for permission to argue at the hearing, which starts on 10 July, that giving witnesses immunity would be against the public interest.

Mr Justice Collins ruled last February that Roy Meadow, the retired paediatrician who gave misleading statistical evidence at the trial of Sally Clark for the murder of her two baby sons, should never have been brought before the GMC, let alone found guilty of serious professional misconduct and ordered to be struck off the medical register (BMJ 2006;332:439).

The judge held that witness immunity, the rule that witnesses are immune from being sued over their evidence in court, also applies to disciplinary proceedings—except for the rare case where a judge reports the expert to the disciplinary body.

He said the rule was necessary if expert witnesses were not to be deterred from giving evidence.

Mrs Clark’s conviction was later quashed, partly because of Professor Meadow’s evidence but mainly because the home office pathologist who carried out autopsies on both babies had failed to disclose microbiological findings from one baby that could have pointed to a death from natural causes. Mrs Clark’s father filed a complaint against Professor Meadow with the GMC.

If the high court ruling stands, it will have ramifications for expert witnesses in all fields, not just medicine.

Lord Goldsmith said of Mr Justice Collins’s ruling: "I think that decision is wrong in principle.

"I think the public does deserve a degree of protection from people who go to extremes and go beyond their field of expertise or give views which are not properly supported."

Whatever the outcome of the appeal Professor Meadow will remain cleared of serious professional misconduct, because the appeal will focus solely on the immunity point.

Lord Goldsmith, who said he might argue the case personally in court if other commitments permitted, added: "I am not taking sides over whether Professor Meadow was or was not guilty of serious professional misconduct.

"I am concerned with the question of whether someone who goes to court and gives expert evidence should be immune from action by disciplinary bodies. I think this is a very important point of public interest principle."

He said professional bodies should have procedures to guard against "frivolous or vexatious" complaints but should not have to exclude complaints altogether.