The General Medical Council v. Meadow (Attorney General intervening) [2006] EWCA Civ 1390

 

Two issues were identified by the Court of Appeal; firstly, whether statements given by an expert witness as evidence in legal proceedings were subject to immunity from disciplinary, regulatory or fitness to practise proceedings; secondly the Court of Appeal considered the challenge by the GMC to the judge’s decision that Professor Sir Roy Meadows was not guilty of serious professional misconduct.

 

In relation to the first issue the Court of Appeal unanimously held that a fitness to practise panel had the appropriate jurisdiction and as a result Professor Meadow was not immune from the proceedings. The Court of Appeal found against the GMC with regards to the second issue by a majority and the findings of the fitness to practise panel could not be restored.