PROFESSOR SIR ROY MEADOW, whose evidence helped to send three innocent mothers to jail for killing their babies, misled a murder jury by giving naive and grossly misleading evidence as an expert witness, the General Medical Council was told yesterday.

The retired paediatrician who, over decades, has convinced courts that at least 81 infant deaths were murders, told jurors that the chances of two cot deaths in a family were as unlikely as an 80-1 horse winning four consecutive Grand Nationals.

Professor Meadow was a witness in the trials of Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Donna Anthony, who were each convicted of murdering two of their babies but later cleared on appeal. He also gave evidence against Trupti Patel, who was found not guilty of killing her three babies.

Details of the charge, which may mean one of medicine’s most distinguished careers ending in disgrace, were disclosed for the first time. Professor Meadow is being tried over a single claim of “gross professional misconduct” arising from his evidence against Mrs Clark, a 35-year-old solicitor from Wilmslow, Cheshire.

The case against the former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health revolves around his use of statistics to explain in court how remote the possibility was that Mrs Clark’s sons, Christopher and Harry, died of natural causes. Eminent statisticians will be called to dispute his figures.

Professor Meadow told a jury that the chances of two cases of sudden infant death syndrome, or “cot death”, in one family were 73 million to one, or once every 100 years. He obtained this figure by looking at the probability of a single cot death in a family like Mrs Clark’s. Because the Clarks were non-smokers, were employed and the mother was over 26, the chances were calculated at 8,543 to one.

Professor Meadow multiplied this figure by itself to reach his “astronomically increased improbability” for two such deaths. Using a National Lottery analogy, he said it was like “winning the jackpot”.

Yet Professor Meadow was aware of findings which showed that if there is one cot death in a family the likelihood of a second is actually increased, the GMC disciplinary panel was told. The correct “odds” were nearer 75 to one.

He also failed to mention evidence which might help the defence — that babies who died without obvious cause were 25 times less likely to have been murdered than to have died of natural causes.

Robert Seabrook, QC, for the GMC, said:“This charge relates to his giving of evidence for the prosecution in a double murder trail in 1999 when it is alleged that he gave seriously misleading and flawed evidence and thereby was in breach of his duties as a medical expert witness.” His evidence was grossly imbalanced and extravagant.

Mr Seabrook added: “When doctors offer themselves as forensic medical experts, increasingly a feature of consultant practice, they must be scrupulously fair. They are not hired guns. They are not advancing their own pet theories. Like all expert witnesses they must remember their duty is to assist the court by putting all relevant factors fully and frankly before the court. This is especially if the expert is a man of great eminence and therefore likely to be respected, effective and persuasive.”

Professor Meadow contests the charge. The hearing continues.

PORTRAIT OF AN EXPERT WITNESS

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Alex Rider exclusive: Incident in Nice
• Green & confused: do energy-saving bulbs work?
• Let’s skip lunch, say the hungry generation