Do expert witnesses need protection in the post-Meadow disciplinary regime asks Peter Gooderham
The Court of Appeal decided, in Meadow v General Medical Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1390, [2007] 1 All ER 1, that professional regulatory bodies will have a disciplinary role with respect to their members who carry out expert witness work. The partial immunity recognised by Mr Justice Collins in Meadow v General Medical Council [2006] EWHC 146 (Admin), [2006] 2 All ER 329, was unanimously rejected on appeal from the General Medical Council (GMC), with the Attorney General intervening. The law has returned to the position most of us thought it held before Meadow. Professional bodies will regulate experts, but what should experts have the right to expect in the process?
After several high-profile cases involving controversial expert evidence, much has been written about experts’ responsibilities. But what responsibilities are owed towards experts?
Meadow’s GMC proceedings
Professor Sir Roy Meadow was the subject of a complaint to the GMC concerning statistical evidence he gave at the trial of Sally Clark in 1999.
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
