If experts cannot be disciplined for evidence given in court, more unproven theories will be used to convict the innocent, writes John Batt

Professor Sir Roy Meadow's successful appeal against erasure of his name from the medical register for his evidence in the case of solicitor Sally Clark, is not, perhaps, surprising. He is highly regarded by the medical establishment and has appeared in dozens of cases.


The General Medical Council (GMC) said Prof Meadow had made 'serious errors, compounded by repetition over a considerable period of time that fell far short of the standard expected of a registered medical practitioner'.


Mr Justice Collins, in the Administrative Court, found that he made one mistake, which anybody could have made, and it did not amount to serious professional misconduct; the GMC proceedings should never have been brought.


It was said that the case has stopped doctors doing child protection work. But difficulty in recruiting doctors in such a harrowing specialty long predates the Meadow circumstances. And at the four shaken baby syndrome appeals ([2005] EWCA Crim 1980), no fewer than 48 experts were involved in one narrow issue. That hardly suggests a dearth.


I do not know of any solicitor who has experienced difficulty in finding experts. The problem is identifying what sort of an expert is required in each case.


Mr Justice Collins also ruled that experts are immune from disciplinary proceedings, which attacks every professional body's ability to regulate its members. He compared it to a civil suit for damages by an aggrieved litigant, which is a back-door method of taking a second bite at the cherry and is, rightly, contrary to public policy. But the disinterested disciplinary investigation of the conduct of an expert, mandated by an Act of Parliament, is in a different category and very much in the public interest.


The main theories of child abuse and murder of the past 30 years have been struck down by appeal courts. The 'rule of three' - whereby three related infant deaths must all be murder (State of Tennessee v Vernica Ward [M2002-01816-CCA-R3-CD]) - was found to be speculative and not a proper foundation on which to base expert opinion testimony. Appeal judges in Australia ruled that Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy 'is merely a name for a type of behaviour, akin to recognising that there is such a thing as laughing' (R v LM [2004] QCA 192). Our own Court of Appeal found in the shaken baby syndrome appeals that the triad of injuries can be caused in other ways than by the application of unlawful force and that although consistent, they are not diagnostic in the absence of other supporting evidence.


These theories were born of suggestions by respected doctors that seemed so sensible they became the accepted wisdom. Speculation is an essential element in the development of science, but it should not be the basis for ordering children into care, or sending parents to jail or death row.


Extending immunity for experts may encourage the use of unproven theories. Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Donna Anthony served a total of 12 years of imprisonment for murders that never happened. Prof Meadow gave crucial evidence in all of their cases.


Some mothers and fathers are already reluctant to take their children to hospital for fear of false allegations of abuse. Such claims, in criminal and civil courts, are personal disasters that damage public confidence in the rule of law.


The GMC has applied for leave to appeal the finding on immunity, and that Prof Meadow was not guilty of professional misconduct. It does not seek the erasure of his name from the register.


Solicitor John Batt was part of the Sally Clark defence team and is author of Stolen Innocence, the story of Sally Clark