Meadow struck off over misleading trial evidence

Click to follow
The Independent Online

In a highly critical judgment, a General Medical Council fitness-to-practise panel concluded that Prof Meadow, 72, had "abused his position as a doctor" by giving misleading evidence in the trial.

The panel said the consequences of his errors "cannot be underestimated". It said his actions had "seriously undermined" the position of all doctors giving evidence in trials.

Prof Meadow, from Woodgate Lane in Leeds, also gave evidence in two other high profile child murder trials in which mothers were wrongfully convicted.

The panel said he failed in his duty as an expert witness and was wrong to compare the possibility of Mrs Clark's two children dying natural deaths to the odds of horses winning the Grand National.

The panel found on Wednesday that Prof Meadow had misled the jury at Mrs Clark's trial, but concluded that he had not done so intentionally.

Mrs Clark was found guilty in 1999 of murdering her sons Christopher and Harry but had her conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal in 2003.

Prof Meadow also gave evidence in other high-profile trials, including those of Angela Cannings and Donna Anthony.

They were jailed for murdering their children but later cleared by the Court of Appeal.

Mrs Cannings said it was "fantastic" news that Prof Meadow had been struck off.

She said her family was "relieved" at the finding of serious professional misconduct and called for him to now apologise to the Clark family.

"It's just fantastic, very positive news," she said in a BBC interview.

"Please now can the authorities look at the other professionals who get it wrong and deal with them accordingly.

"For me it is personal recognition for what he did wrong to us as a family, what he did wrong to the Clark family and all those other families.

"I would like to see him publicly and privately apologise to the Clark family.

"It would show that he is human."

The GMC panel told Prof Meadow that they had considered their finding that he did not intend to mislead Mrs Clark's jury.

However, chairwoman Mary Clark-Glass said: "Your misguided belief in the truth of your arguments, maintained throughout the period in question, and indeed, throughout this inquiry, is both disturbing and serious.

"It is because of your eminence and authority that this misleading evidence carried such great weight."

The panel focused on his use of statistics, especially the fact he told the jury there was only a one in 73 million chance that both Clark children died through natural causes.

They said this led to the "false implication" that there was only a one in 73 million chance that Mrs Clark had not killed her children.