The General Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow with Her Majesty's Attorney General
Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWCA Civ 1390, 26 October 2006. Appeal by GMC against decision ([2006] EWHC 146 (Admin), [2006] 1 WLR 1452] that an expert witness could be entitled to immunity from disciplinary proceedings in relation to evidence given by him in legal proceedings and that the respondent paediatrician (M) had not been guilty of serious professional misconduct. M had given evidence in the prosecution of a woman (C) for the murder of her two sons. The conviction was overturned on appeal and C's father made a complaint to the GMC alleging serious professional misconduct by M. The GMC's Fitness to Practise Panel found M had been guilty of misconduct. Following M's successful appeal, GMC appealed. "Held": GMC's appeal allowed in part. M had no immunity from disciplinary proceedings before the Fitness to Practise Panel in respect of his evidence in a murder trial, but had not in the circumstances been guilty of serious professional misconduct by giving statistical evidence in a mistaken belief as to its validity.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 135561-2001 |
[2006] EWCA Civ 1390, 26 October 2006. Appeal by GMC against decision ([2006] EWHC 146 (Admin), [2006] 1 WLR 1452] that an expert witness could be entitled to immunity from disciplinary proceedings in relation to evidence given by him in legal proceedings and that the respondent paediatrician (M) had not been guilty of serious professional misconduct. M had given evidence in the prosecution of a woman (C) for the murder of her two sons. The conviction was overturned on appeal and C's father made a complaint to the GMC alleging serious professional misconduct by M. The GMC's Fitness to Practise Panel found M had been guilty of misconduct. Following M's successful appeal, GMC appealed. "Held": GMC's appeal allowed in part. M had no immunity from disciplinary proceedings before the Fitness to Practise Panel in respect of his evidence in a murder trial, but had not in the circumstances been guilty of serious professional misconduct by giving statistical evidence in a mistaken belief as to its validity.