The Court of Appeal decision overturns a previous ruling in the case of Professor Sir Roy Meadow, the eminent paediatrician, which had effectively handed immunity to expert medical witnesses.

Professor Meadow was struck off the medical register last year by the General Medical Council for giving misleading evidence that helped convict Sally Clark of murdering her two children.

He successfully appealed against the decision in the High Court on the grounds that he had given his evidence in good faith and should never have been prosecuted by the GMC as he had acted as an expert witness.

Today the Court of Appeal upheld the decision that Professor Meadow should not have been stuck off as he had made an honest mistake, but stated that expert medical witnesses should still face penalties if they give bad evidence.

Professor Meadow was acclaimed as an expert in the field of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (Sids) and how such deaths could be differentiated from children harmed by their parents — so-called Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy.

He gave evidence that the risk of two infants dying naturally of Sids in a household such as Mrs Clark’s was effectively one in 73 million.

Professor Meadow, of Leeds, also gave evidence in the child murder trials of Angela Cannings and Donna Anthony, who were jailed for murdering their children but later cleared by the Court of Appeal.

Mrs Clark’s conviction was quashed in the Court of Appeal criminal division in 2003 after Professor Meadow's evidence was rubbished by statisticians; her father complained to the GMC that the professor’s evidence amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The professor was found guilty by the GMC in July last year of serious professional misconduct following a finding by its Fitness to Practise Panel that his conduct was "fundamentally incompatible with what is expected by the public from a registered medical practitioner".

A High Court judge, Mr Justice Collins, overturned the decision in a ruling earlier this year stating it was "quite unnecessary" to have struck Professor Meadow from the medical register.

His decision also had the affect of granting immunity from disciplinary action to all expert witnesses.

Lawyers for the GMC argued at a hearing at the Court of Appeal in July that the High Court decision rendered the disciplinary body "toothless" against professionals acting as expert witnesses.

The panel of appeal judges, headed by the Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, accepted arguments made by the GMC and the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith — who intervened in the case because of its importance — that there was no such thing as immunity for expert witnesses.

By a majority, the judges dismissed the GMC appeal over serious professional misconduct, with Sir Anthony dissenting.

However, Lord Justice Auld said Professor Meadow was "undoubtedly guilty of some professional misconduct".

He added: "I could not contemplate erasure as an appropriate penalty for Professor Meadow’s uncharacteristic honest errors in this difficult case."

Lord Justice Thorpe, the other judge who dismissed the appeal over serious professional misconduct, said: "Professor Meadow’s evidence, flawed though it was, fell far short of serious professional misconduct."

Sir Anthony said he accepted the Attorney-General’s argument that the threat of disciplinary action was in the public interest because it helped to deter those who might be tempted to give partisan evidence and not discharge their obligation to help the court by giving objective evidence.

"It helps to preserve the integrity of the trial process and public confidence both in the trial process and in the standards of the professions from which expert witnesses come."

Finlay Scott, the GMC's chief executive, said: "This appeal was about protecting the public interest. The public must be confident that doctors and other professionals who give evidence in court proceedings can, if necessary, be held to account by their regulator."

Professor Meadow, 73, who is now retired from the profession, was in court to hear the ruling. "I am glad that the Court of Appeal has agreed with the previous High Court judgment that my evidence in the trial of Mrs Clark nearly seven years ago was not an example of serious professional misconduct," he said. "The GMC was wrong in its judgment of me."

Dr Christine Tomkins, deputy chief executive of the Medical Defence Union, which supported Prof Meadow's case, said it might now appeal to the House of Lords on the issue of expert witness immunity.

She added: "It is in the public interest that doctors should be able to provide expert opinion in cases where there are allegations of child abuse without fear that they will be the subject of a finding of serious professional misconduct for expressing a genuinely held belief."

Explore Health

• Expert Advice

• Health Features

• Mental Health

• Alternative Medicine

• Child Health

• Health Club